Slashdot Mirror
Texter Not Responsible For Textee's Car Accident, Rules Judge
linuxwrangler writes "After mowing down a motorcycling couple while distracted by texting, Kyle Best received a slap on the wrist. The couple's attorney then sued Best's girlfriend, Shannon Colonna, for exchanging messages with him when he was driving. They argued that while she was not physically present, she was 'electronically present.' In good news for anyone who sends server-status, account-alerts or originates a call, text or email of any type that could be received by a mobile device, the judge dismissed the plantiff's claims against the woman."
I agree that the texter is not responsible for the accident, but the initial ruling:'the slap on the wrist' that the textee got, well, IMHO, $775.00 USD is way too small compensation for two innocent victims, both of which had to undergo leg amputations as a result of textee's 'distracted driving'.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Well in law, at least in Canada accidents are described to something that is done by fault with no malice or direct negligence intended. Criminal negligence causing bodily harm is what this case amounts to.
Om, nomnomnom...
if i get the sense i'm talking to someone who is driving, i will say "are you driving? i'll get off the phone"
it's not about being a hyperactive boy scout, it's not about the law, it's about living with myself. because if i am on the phone with someone while they are driving and i am AWARE of it, then i am responsible for continuing the conversation, and helping to keep the driver distracted
i have to live with myself. and i have to respect myself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Best was ordered to speak to 14 high schools about the dangers of texting and driving and had to pay about $775 in fines, but his driver's license was not suspended."
would have been pretty far fetched if you'd be liable for sending txt's as distraction to someone though... quite ridiculous even. but as publicity stunt it works ok. anyhow, terrorists should just drive around in vans with gas containers texting each others it seems, it's a pretty low fine for putting two people on insurance living for the rest of their lives. (yay a card!).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't think it's greed that motivates two people who've both lost limbs due to someone else's reckless driving to sue whomever their lawyer says they should name in the suit. They've been deprived of something most of us take for granted (basic mobility), and should have the right pursue compensation for the difficulty they'll face the rest of their lives. The stupid shyster they hired simply gave them really misguided legal advice, that's all.
But anyone with an ounce of logic can see it is bad to sue someone who is not responsible. This is completely money grabbing. Just because you have been injured doesn't mean you should try and ruin everybody else's life.
So you're saying that this couple should not have applied basic logic to what their lawyer was telling them?
If the distracted driver had been listening to the radio instead, should they have sued the radio station?
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
Hmmm
The only person responsible for the accident was the driver of the car. He chose to read the text messages whilst driving. What I cannot understand is the reasoning from the courts as to the decision handed down to the driver of the car. Such a serious accident and he did not even get banned from driving? As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
Why is he a douchebag? Just because he and his wife each lost their left legs in the crash while the driver gets sentenced to less than a thousand dollars in fines and has to speak a few schools on the dangers of texting and driving? If she knew he was texting while driving, I'd say there is a small amount of culpability on her part. But I'm guessing that the reason the girlfriend is getting sued is that the kid and his parents have no money. Probably the best the couple can hope for is to get judgement that's to garnish his wages for the rest of his life.
If you don't answer the IM, it remains in your inbox just like an email. If you are unavaliable to take the call, IM, or Email while driving, let it go to voicemail, inbox, etc. I'll still be there when you have time to deal with it.
In many places distracted driving due to phone use is illegal. My contacts know I don't take calls while driving, but I am aware I have a message, either voicemail or text.
The illegal act or dangerous act was the driver's responsibility. I'm not sure if texting while driving is lillegal where he was, but it is still dangerous, which was demonstrated by the driver.
The truth shall set you free!
insightful? are you kidding me?
Two people lost their legs because the asshole was texting. I'd give them a pass for being a little cranky and suing around!
That an AC could be a sociopath devoid of any empathy is par for the course, but mods, really?
Having bad things happen to you does NOT EVER give you a free pass to cause bad things to happen to others.
The greedy part was suing someone who wasn't involved.
If the guy was listening to talk radio, and something they said something that distracted him, would the radio station, or those talking on the radio be at fault? No. The argument is the same. They (those on the radio) have a reasonable expectation that people may be listening while driving. That's the only time a lot of us listen. Morning and evening commutes have higher advertising costs, because they know that's the peak time for listeners. They don't only expect it, they profit from it.
Is it their fault for making the driver pay more attention to the radio than to the road around him? No. The fault was assigned properly in the beginning, with the driver who committed the action. Going anywhere beyond that is trying to profit from the incident. Will they continue on and sue the telephone manufacturer? the carrier? the vehicle manufacturers? the city/count/state highway department? any store front near the incident? owners and advertisers of any billboards that may have been visible? How about the girl jogging, she was clearly a severe distraction.
You *can* sue all of them. You probably won't win any of them, and will make a lot of enemies along the way. That's one of the wonders of our legal system. You can sue anyone you want, any time you want, for pretty much anything you want. It doesn't mean you'll win.
I have sympathy for the people who were injured. Life sucks. I know.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
You don't consider it douchebagy to sue an innocent person just because they have money?
suing is not "causing bad things to others". it is simply asking a judge "don't you think this person owes me money because of his behavour?". The judge said no, case closed. explain to me the harm they have caused to anyone aside from the inconvenience to walk to court? something that incidentally the defendant did not even do?
But then again, if you cannot even muster the sympathy to excuse the act of "slightly inconveniencing" by the injured couple, I don't think we can ever agree.
Of course you don't have to, it is just that for functioning human beings it is natural to be understanding to people that suffered a loss.
This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
If you get found guilty of filing a frivolous lawsuit... you should be punched in the face.
I'm not going to bother levying a fine. These idiots are litigious jerks and probably are broke anyway. Why bother with that. Just have the bailiff pop him in the face.
Barbaric you say? Not at all. Barbaric would be one person randomly coming up to another person on the street and doing it. The difference between kidnapping someone for ten years and prison is the court system.
So if the court determines you filed a frivilious lawsuit... one solid pop to the face. Nothing more or less. You want to file another suit? Go for it.
I have no idea if this would cut down on bullshit lawsuits but I'd like to experiment with it.
What about corporations? That's a little more complicated. I don't want to just punch the lawyer in the face because for all we know he's just some young legal grad they hired to be a punching bag. I'd probably go with the head of their legal department or possibly their CEO. God knows Steve Jobs should have been punched in the face a few times went he decided to touch off this patent Armageddon.
Possibly a stupid idea... but it would make judge judy more interesting to watch. Can you just picture this in a tv court show? That would be delicious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The recipient of such messages is in complete control as to whether or not to acknowledge such messages. Although this might on the surface seem similar to cases where a bartender was held responsible for serving a 'drunk', in this case, the recipient of the messages is in full control of their faculties.
Canada also has reasonable tort laws and malicious prosecution rules that would have prevented this case from ever getting before a judge in the first place.
It was certainly negligence, and the people in question have every right to go after the insurance company of the driver for lost wages, hardship, etc. The insurance company can, in turn, go after the driver to recoup their losses, as you are correct that this is criminal negligence and the driver was not obeying the rules of the road. The driver's girlfriend, however, has no responsibility in this... he's the one who was responding to her texts while driving. At least, in Canada that's how it would play out. I'm relieved to hear that the US still has some sane judges on the bench.
No, this had nothing to do trying to get money from her.
When something bad happens, you sue everybody who's connected to the defendant and to the incident in any way. That's the standard unofficial rule. By doing that, you're hoping that the defendants turn on each other, or at the very minimum, that one of them talks too much.
explain to me the harm they have caused to anyone aside from the inconvenience to walk to court?
Walking to court costs nothing.
Walking to court with a lawyer will cost you $600/hr, for who knows how many hours to prepare for the completely baseless case. Luckily she had a judge that was smart enough to throw the case out quickly. God help her if this was dragged to trial, as the 'inconvenience' could have run into the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.
Some states do not allow the wages to be garnished. In Florida a garnishment is excessively rare although the system has one or two now and then. Combine that with a physical injury cap of 10K per person and the victims can't even pay for the initial ER bills much less the tons of bills and loss of income and life long disabilities. And it gets even worse. In some counties many people have no insurance and not even a driver's license. Retired people who feared loss of life time savings set these laws and policies into motion.
I think the law needs to be altered to change that from "assholes" to "criminals" at the judges discretion.
Actually, they were injured because some asshole was reading texts (OK, maybe he was replying as well). But he didn't have the good sense to leave his f*cking phone alone while driving.
The fact that the driver's sentence was just a slap on the wrist is what is disturbing. But just going after the next person with deep pockets or a paid up liability policy is ludicrous.
Have gnu, will travel.
Then why sue anybody at all?
Because that's the only system we have. IANAL, but I don't think they could sue anyone asking for a "permanent cell phone" ban (not that it would be enforceable anyway).
Personally I'd rather see them sue asking for the removal of the driver's thumbs. Because if there's any chance to make the driver believe even for a second that he could actually lose his thumbs, he might finally understand that he shouldn't be playing with his damn phone while driving.
P.S. I completely disagree with them suing the girlfriend, but I can't say that I wouldn't get equally suckered by a slick-talking lawyer in a similar situation. Walk a mile, and all that...
It's certainly reasonable for someone to think, "this lawyer's advice is awfully illogical and almost evil." But the law is a regulated profession. How often is common sense really useful in law? We trust lawyers, enforced by regulation, to give their clients good legal advice because a client cannot be expected to differentiate between a good and a bad legal strategy. The same is true of doctors or any other licensed and regulated profession. You should be comfortable in trusting the advice of your lawyer; if your lawyer gives you bad advice, the onus is on them as a professional.
I guess you've been watching too many TV law shows. Plus you're a shiester if you think suing everybody, and not just a responsible party is a good idea. So this idiot driver ruined some people's lives. And now you're saying that they in turn get to go and financially rape somebody else who has no fault in the incident? Lawyers to defend against frivolous lawsuits are not free and aren't cheap. Why should the guy's girlfriend have to go broke to pay for one when it wasn't her fault. If the guy was driving, he should have put the phone down and kept his hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. Sue him. He's the guilty party. Only a lowlife would want to punish people who didn't do anything.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried, and they may have had reason to believe she was at least partially culpable. If she knew her boyfriend was driving, there's a case there that she was a party to an act of gross negligence.
I agree entirely with the judge's ruling: the court has to set hard limits to where you can assign blame so as to prevent an inquisition. We don't know if the texts reveal that she knew, also, but it seems unlikely.
But in light of how severe their damages were, I think they were right to bring it before the court, even though it was a long shot.
And they probably also felt morally wronged by her, and it's not at all unreasonable to seek out justice through the system that society has set in place to resolve such disputes. Especially when, you know, you just lost your fucking leg.
Suing a person who has no involvement just because they have money clearly qualifies as douchebaggery.
I would say it's not exactly the same. The bartender is able to see the status of the person right in front of them. On the other hand the person texting probably doesn't know if the recipient is driving.
The lack of national health care and a decent social safety net in the United States is one of the biggest drivers behind "frivolous" lawsuits like this.
In most European countries, the injured couple would have all their medical expenses automatically covered. They would not face the risk (ubiquitous in the U.S.) of medical bankruptcy. They would also be able to take advantage of other social programs if they were too seriously injured to continue work in their current jobs.
In the U.S., when you get seriously injured, you face the very real probability that you will be financially ruined as well. Therefore, your only defense is to find someone with deep pockets who is arguably responsible for the accident, and sue them.
Likewise, in Europe, it's harder and less lucrative to sue for injuries arising from consumer products – but there are also much stricter safety regulations and the regulators are less shy about yanking products from the market if they do prove genuinely unsafe.
We as a country have decided to outsource large parts of our regulatory and insurance apparatus to the courts, and this is the result.
If she knew her boyfriend was driving, there's a case there that she was a party to an act of gross negligence.
And that line of thinking is why our legal system is so fucked up. She didn't text while driving, and she didn't hit the couple. Why the hell is she responsible for making sure someone else isn't doing something stupid and irresponsible?
It is because MADD is a very powerful lobby. What these people should have done was spend that money on badgering the courts to stiffen penalties instead of trying to hit the Court Lottery.
There are two douchebags in this case, but they are not the victims of the crime or the merely peripherally involved girlfriend.
The first douchebag is the guy who ploughed into the victims' motorcycle as he texted while driving. The second douchebag is the NJ court which "punished" him with a $775 fine and a few hours community work, but did not even suspend his driver's licence. It has been repeatedly established that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving while impaired by alcohol. He should have received rather more than this slap on the wrist, and the victims of his crime apparently plan to appeal his light sentence.
In Finland and various other countries, and in several states of the US, the law is you stop your car to talk or text on any communication device. You may get fined if observed talking or texting on the phone even if your driving is otherwise perfect.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
? If she knew he was texting while driving, I'd say there is a small amount of culpability on her part.
Nonsense. One reason for sending a text rather than calling is precisely so the recipient doesnt have to drop what they are doing. Maybe, just maybe, if it had been a voice call and the caller knew the other person was driving then they should take some responsibility, but really, unless the other person is in the car and literally screaming in the driver's ear, the buck stops with the driver, and texting while driving is really in its own class of mindbogglingly stupid things to do.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
You are free to extract punishment in civil court, yes. Anything else would be a crime under our legal system.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.