Slashdot Mirror
Driver Sued For Updating Facebook In Fatal Crash
An anonymous reader writes "21-year-old Chicago motorist Araceli Beas has been accused of attempting to update her Facebook page on her cell phone when she allegedly struck and killed 70-year-old Raymond Veloz. The victim's daughter, Regina Cabrales, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking for an unspecified amount of money. Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident. As proof, she points to the fact that Beas' Facebook page showed an update posted at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2010, which is the same time that Veloz's cell phone records showed a call being made to 911."
I assume the phone call was made AFTER the wreck. If she updated at the same time as the 911 call, wouldn't the update also be AFTER the wreck?
This is, of course, assuming that the person making the call isn't psychic and made the call before the wreck.
Since driving and using a cell phone at the same time are illegal in the city of Chicago, having evidence that the driver was doing so at the time of the accident means the defendant has a rough day in court ahead.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
while driving, then it should be legal to take bong hits.
Criminal suits ==> "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
Civil suits ==> "Preponderance of evidence"
As this is a civil suit (wrongful death is civil), the rules for civil suits apply. Most knee-jerk reactions want to look to "reasonable doubt" and then look into any time disparities among the phone, Facebook and other services and factors involved in the establishment of this evidence. (for example, timezone data could have significant impact on the reported time(s) from the phone company, the 9-1-1 service, Facebook and more.)
If all of those time issues are in correct synchronization, then the preponderance of evidence rule would probably result in the plaintiff winning the case.
This has nothing to do with computers. She should be banned from driving for life.
She's 21. I bet she has some really nice assets.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Totally agree if she did it.
When driving a big heavy thing that can easily kill people.. if you don't have the decency to pay attention, then when you do kill someone the penalty should be much steeper than a fine and/or slap on the wrist.
That said, I'd say there are enough questions here that it's 50/50 whether she is guilty or not. Luckily that's what investigations and trials are for.
Ironic punishment time. Every one of the victims relatives and friends who desires to do so gets to run over Beas while they update their facebook page.
Wouldn't that be considered 'cruel and unusual punishment'? The victim was 70 so his wife would probably take forever to update her status with a cell while driving over Beas.
proof Facebook kills.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
There are millions of people who text, update facebook, and talk on the phone while driving every day, it could happen to you, me, anyone!
.
Where I live, it is illegal to do so. If whatever you're doing is distracting your attention from safe control of the 1000-3000kg object travelling at likely more than 30mph, then stop fucking doing it.
which is totally what she said
Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.
So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.
The only way it could happen to me is if some JACKASS who doesn't have the common sense and self-discipline required to pay attention when navigating a two-ton vehicle slams into me while I'm driving. Or maybe walking on the sidewalk. It's exactly that sort of jackass that I don't want on the road with me! THAT is why she should be banned from driving for life. Until the OTHER JACKASSES, the ones you are talking about, who suffer from the same problem realize that their behaviors will have serious consequences, they will KEEP DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING! This is not about vengeance! This is not about someone being at the wrong place at the wrong time! If she'd been PAYING ATTENTION when she was in that place, this WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I think it's not even relevant - her defence is "blinding sunlight" so she was already driving without due care and attention if she couldn't see him and stop in time by driving far too fast for the conditions, whether she was using her phone or not.
Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story
A few public executions would very likely reduce the number of fools that use smartphones while driving
I strongly doubt it. Even for the person causing them, car accidents are risky and expensive. Even hitting a pedestrian will probably involve getting a face full of airbag, a bumper replacement, and whatever re-fit is necessary to get the airbag system re-armed. Collision with a more solid object can easily result in serious injury or death, as well as a totalled vehicle.
Even without legal intervention, spikes in insurance rates, and the like, causing a car accident is, a nontrivial percentage of the time, something that carries an automatic punishment with it. Once you add insurance companies, healthcare hassles, and vehicular manslaughter charges, the odds get worse.
If all that doesn't dissuade the dumbasses from keeping their eyes on their toys rather than the road, I'm not thinking that remote odds of execution would...
He was calling 911 about the first accident when she struck him.
Classic bit of false inference.
Assuming the phone times were accurate and in sync (big assumption), someone was calling 911 on the victim's phone at the same time as she hit "submit" on her Facebook upgrade. That this was the victim reporting the first accident is a reasonable surmise, but there's no evidence of this. Nor is it stated anywhere that the victim was on the phone at the time of the second accident.
The critical bit of missing information is the precise time of the second accident. If you read TFA-within-TFA this is given as "about 8:00".
So even if the timings are in sync and "about 8:00" was precise, the defendant could reasonably have finished Facebooking 6 minutes before the fatal accident. That sounds like enough time to be parked up, put down your phone, pull out and drive 2 miles. Even easier if "about 8:00" means "8:05" or "8:10".
Its really not worth delving into the details of when the calls/postings were made unless the time of the accident can be pinpointed with comparable accuracy (unless you plan on baffling a jury with bullshit).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Except it isn't. As numerous people have stated, she has witnesses to the fact that the Facebook post happened two miles from the accident in her driveway while waiting for the car to warm up. The other party in the first accident was a witness to the fact that the sun was right in motorists eyes, and may have been the cause of the first accident. The 70 yo guy was standing presumably in the street when struck, and even at 30 MPH, you are going quite fast enough to injure someone as badly as he was injured. It is entirely likely Baes had slowed down due to the sun, but did not see the man standing in the middle of the freaking road in time to prevent the accident. This may be considered manslaughter, but I can't see her being prosecuted for that. Do you expect people in the middle of a lane on the highway when you are driving? If your vision is difficult from staring into the sun, are you likely to see someone doing this rather odd thing in time to avoid the accident?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
ah, so you nailed someone while being blinded by the sun too!
Yep, turned out she was only hot b/c the sun was in my eyes =/