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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.