NJ Court: Sending a Text Message To a Driver Could Make You Liable For Crash

C0R1D4N writes "A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that both sides of a texting conversation which resulted in a car accident could be held liable. The ruling came as part of a case in which the driver of a truck received a text message shortly before striking a motorcycle carrying two passengers. The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

Comments

Idiocracy

[shiftless]

What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be driving?

Idiocracy was supposed to be a comedy, not a how to instruction manual.

Re:Idiocracy

[DarkOx]

What if a radio DJ makes a shocking announcement and he knows or has special reason to know someone may be listing while driving?

This one seems nutty to me; making anyone responsible for the safe operation of a car beyond the one operating it seems kinda foolish.

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

Re:Idiocracy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."

Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.

It's irrelevant; because the hypothetical proposes a fairly stiff standard of evidence to meet (and would only kick in when both that standard is met and a text-reading driver does something unpleasant enough to get the courts involved); but it's actually not dissimilar from reasoning in other contexts:

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not. Few scenarios are as clear cut as 'prior knowledge of atypical and dangerous allergy'; but it's hardly unreasonable to expect that certain people will be specially vulnerable to certain agents, and that people who know that and expose them anyway should be treated as though they intended the consequences that they knew about, rather than the consequences that would have resulted for any random normal person.

Re:Idiocracy

[Joce640k]

Its tricky to know somebody's driving when you send a text.

OTOH if you call somebody who's driving you can hear the car, etc., you can usually tell if they're driving or not. Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.

Re:Idiocracy

[SJHillman]

One issue I have with text records is that my phone will keep trying to send the message until it gets signal. So I can type and hit Send while still in a convenience store, but it might not actually send until I'm 30 miles down the road to an area with better reception. I would presume that records would show when it was actually sent, not when it was typed out. Given that most areas of the country have spotty reception due to even small topographic features or because people use Sprint, it's a less unlikely scenario than it might seem.

Re:Idiocracy

[meerling]

Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them, and on top of that, the text is a non-time sensitive communication like a physical letter. The only reason to read it the moment you get it is because you want to, otherwise you just wait until it's convenient, nobody is in any way forcing you to read it now.

As to the morons in NJ, they said "...know, the recipient will view the text while driving". I guess the statement of "I didn't know he/she was stupid enough to text while driving." suddenly becomes a valid defense.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Re:Idiocracy

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Apparently you can in Joisey

Re:Idiocracy

[Imagix]

Some allergies are apparently serious enough that putting your sandwich on the counter, and then later Bob touching that area causes a reaction.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone is that allergic to something then they should live in a bubble. The entire would should not have to stop because someone has a condition.

Re:Idiocracy

[studpuppy]

It's easy to know if the sender knew. Just ask the NSA. Apparently, they know everything these days....

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, too fucking bad for Bob, then. He can't seriously expect the whole world to bend over backwards to accommodate him.

This is getting ridiculous with the fucking food allergies. Oh noes, I'm allergic to peanuts. Oh noes, I'm allergic to tree nuts. Oh noes, I'm allergic to shellfish. Oh noes, I'm lactose intollerant. Oh noes, I'm allergic to gluten. Oh noes, I'm allergic to eggs. Well fuck that, my kids school is like a fucking prison with so many restrictions, one of these days they'll probably start feeding the kids cardboard because every tiny little shit is allergic to something.

Re:Idiocracy

[flayzernax]

Its the drivers duty to turn off their phone and ensure they are not distracted while driving. The responsibility falls on the drivers of the vehicles. If they cannot preform this duty. They should not be driving. We don't even need special rules or laws. Just hold people accountable for when they fuck up. Make it clear to everyone what will happen if you are not responsible.

Suddenly people become more responsible.

Also discourteous irresponsible people should get killed early in life.

Re:Idiocracy

[David_Hart]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not..

What? Sorry, but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving. This is about the continued abdication of personal responsibility. When you get behind the wheel of a car, anything you do is your responsibility.

Re:Idiocracy

[Luthair]

Most people consider text messaging to be asynchronous communication to be responded to when the receiver is able. The only occasion I can think of where the sender ought to be liable is if they were the driver's employer and required the driver to respond quickly.

Re:Idiocracy

[Luthair]

Agreed. If allergies are that bad then you already need to be on guard at all times as any surface in a public place could contain trace amounts of peanuts which could in turn be transferred to the counters at work.

Re:Idiocracy

[hypergreatthing]

That's a awful sense of logic.

If i want to bring a peanut butter sandwich to work with full knowledge that Bob from accounting is allergic, the only reasonable action i must take is to make sure that I don't purposely expose Bob my delicious sandwich. If i get into an argument with Bob and be punches me in the face and steals my lunch and proceeds to wolf it down in front of me, i am not responsible for his actions.

There has to be a cut off where personal responsibility takes over.

If someone is driving and decides to ignore the laws and text, phone, do their makeup, drink, jump out the car, light themselves on fire, it is not the responsibility of a third party to ensure they don't do any of those things. I've never heard the defense of "Sorry, i was too distracted by that hot blonde in the other lane" being used to defend their reckless behavior. There are hundreds of distractions when driving. It is up to the driver to focus on the task at hand.

Now if you were driving with a bunch of clowns in a car, and they proceeded to grab the wheel, i can see where a direct cause and effect of getting into an accident could the the responsibility of another person. But last time i checked, texting someone does not require them to immediately check it. Unless of course they have a bomb strapped to their necks that will go off unless they respond, i don't think anyone will ever believe that they were forced to be distracted.

Re:Idiocracy

[squiggleslash]

but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving

Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.

This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

Re: Idiocracy

[JaredOfEuropa]

Even so. I should be able to send a text to a driver even if I know for sure he is driving at that time. A text message can be left alone until it is safe to read it, and the responsibility of waiting to read the message until it can be done safely is 100â... the responsibility of the recipient.

Re:Idiocracy

[Culture20]

Same here. But then there's invariably a commercial advertisement that uses honking car horns or an emergency siren. Thanks radio!

Re:Idiocracy

[jedidiah]

> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.

Re:Idiocracy

[St.Creed]

I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.

My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

Re:Idiocracy

[wagnerrp]

To be fair, when a lactose intolerant person drinks milk, everyone in the vicinity loses.

Re:Idiocracy

[hairyfeet]

To be fair there is gonna be plenty of times when you are gonna "have a special reason to know" the person you are texting is driving. For example the drummer for my band has a day job which involves driving a long distance to work so i know not to call him for at least 2 hours after his shift ends otherwise he is likely to get my call during his commute so by this ruling if I ignored the fact that I know what hours he works I would be at least partially responsible.

So while the courts have had a LOT of bad rulings lately this one it seems is just applying common sense, if you know the person is on the road between the hours of X and Y and you text them anyway? You are helping to contribute to unsafe conditions, no different than if you were the passenger and kept distracting the driver to show them some LOLCats on your phone.

Re:Idiocracy

[hyperquantization]

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

No, that's called Accessory to Murder.

Re:Idiocracy

[anarcobra]

I think the interesting question is what do they expect to do if one of the persons (i.e either the texter or textee) is in a state where texting while driving is accepted? Will I still be fined for sending a text to Bob who I know is driving, but he's in a state where it is legal to text while driving? And what if I send text to Bob who is driving in NJ, but I'm in a state where it is legal? Will they turn it into a federal case based on some perverted interpretation of interstate commerce?

Re:Idiocracy

[hawguy]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

Just because I send someone a text message doesn't mean that I'm forcing them to read it while driving. I'll often text my wife when I know she's driving home because I want to send it to her before *I* start driving. Something like "Hey sweetie, after your aerobics class can you pick up milk at the store?" or "I'm going to the gym after work so I'll be home late, go ahead and eat dinner without me".

I don't need or expect her to read the SMS's while she's driving, so why should I be responsible if she does? I paid for the car that she's driving that's capable of traveling at well over 100mph - if she goes over the speed limit and gets into an accident am I responsible for not speed-limiting the car?

Re:Idiocracy

[AvitarX]

So, at what point does responsibility for distraction take hold?

Obviously if I do something distracting, like make a loud noise that takes a security guard away from their post, and shit goes down I have responsibility.

I tend to agree that we should be allowed to text people driving or not, and put the responsibility on the drivers, but if someone texted me back and was like, keep it to a minimum, I'm driving in a shaky situation, and I kept a conversation going, clearly I am doing is wrong on some level.

If someone does something stupid, like jumps out into traffic, I should try to avoid them too, even if they are being idiotic.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

They could just as easily read the text later. It's asynchronous communication.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Apparently you can in Joisey

You would be wrong, even in Joisey. It depends on if you have been warned. If Bob has a deadly allergy to peanuts and even the slightest contact is enough to trigger a lethal attack and (this is the important part) the employees in the office have been notified of the problem and that they are not to bring peanut butter onto the premises, you can be held accountable.

While I don't know of any cases involving peanut butter, there are plenty involving perfume and cologne where an employee is allergic to strong smells from these substances and other employees are prohibited from using them at the workplace (or even teachers if a student has the condition). Violation of the prohibition costs one their job. By definition, if you lose your job for bringing the banned substance to work because of an allergy another employee has, you are in fact being held accountable [for your actions].

Whether the other employee, Bob in the AC's post, takes the sandwich or not, does not remove your accountability for your own action. For all Bob knew, he might argue, it was supposed to be an almond butter sandwich, not peanut butter. It doesn't matter, if you didn't bring the banned substance in the first place, Bob would never have had the opportunity to come into contact with it.

Re:Idiocracy

[fuzznutz]

Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.

No it wouldn't. You fall into the same logic trap as the Jersey judge thinking that more laws/liability will fix human behavior that we don't like. It's already illegal to text and drive in my state, and every day I see at least 3 drivers on my four mile work commute doing it. Every other driver is talking on the phone at 5:00 during their drive home.

Does anybody seriously think the answer to all life's problems is more laws? Must we always advocate yet another statute on the books every time we see something we don't agree with or don't like? Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens.

The law and order crowd is turning our world into a police state.

Re:Idiocracy

[David_Hart]

but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving

Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.... If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

No... it's still utter nonsense. No matter what a texter does, they cannot force you to pick up the phone.

It's like saying that a cute girl is responsible for your bad driving because she is walking down the road in the summer wearing shorts and a bikini top looking hot. Based on the logic above, she would hold some responsibility simply because she knows that guys would be driving down the road looking at her, causing accidents.

No one in their right mind would hold the girl responsible, in whole or in part, for your actions or any accidents caused by your actions. The same applies to people texting you. No one in their right mind would expect you to reply to their texts while driving, even if they knew that you were. They would expect you to find a safe place to pull over. It's your responsibility to drive safely and no one can force you to text back while driving....

Re: Idiocracy

[Immerman]

In most situations I would completely agree with you. But In the particular case of your boss/dispatcher/etc texting you there is quite possibly an employer-created set of perverse incentives, in which case the employer should be liable for willfully creating a hazardous work environment:
Do you pull over to respond? Or does that cut into your performance or compensation metrics?
Do you wait until you would stop anyway for a delivery/service call/whatever? Or does that make you "nonresponsive" and hurt your standing with the boss/dispatcher?

You get the idea. Ideally just the existence of such perverse incentives would be grounds for a lawsuit from either an employe or any member of the endangered public. In reality though nobody is likely to sue over something so apparently minor. Making the employer share responsibility for any accidents though, there's some incentive to not create such incentives.

Re:Idiocracy

[vux984]

Most people consider text messaging to be asynchronous communication to be responded to when the receiver is able.

Says someone who has never seen how people actually obsessively compulsively read texts during dinner, at movies, while driving, or using a toilet.

Not saying you are wrong on it being technically asynchronous, or about where the liability is. I think you are right.

But most people I see out in the world treat texting as 'talking on the phone without dialing'. And with texting systems like BBM where you can see if its delivered, or read... a lot of people get very irate if they see its delivered, read and not immediately responded too, and only slightly less irate if its delivered but not read.

The group that consider texting to be asynchronous and ok to be responded to at leisure is I think the minority.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.

My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

That could be, but more likely it isn't the case. I agree that it isn't overdiagnosing, either, but it is just better diagnosing. People have many allergies, very few lead to anaphylactic shock. I for one am allergic to peanuts and yet I eat them all the time and enjoy peanut butter. There is a difference between having an allergy and having a life threatening allergy. Today, kids get test routinely for allergies. As such, they are now diagnosed as having these allergies, whereas previous you would only get tested if you were having actual allergy problems. Most people are allergic to a myriad of things. If the symptoms are problematic you take allergy pills. If the symptoms are deadly, you avoid the source all together and carry an epi pen just in case.

Probably the reason you don't hear of many peanut allergies in China is that like the US, most people do not have a serious allergy to them but unlike the US, most Chinese people don't get the medical care and testing that occurs in the US to determine if they are even mildly allergic.

Re:Idiocracy

[bws111]

It's all so nicely black and white, isn't it?

The driver in this case was a truck driver, he probably worked for a trucking company. Now, suppose his boss had the habit of texting him 'urgent' information, and that continued employment depending on responding to/acting on those texts.

The driver has free will

. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.

The driver has moral awareness

Yep, and probably a big part of that awareness is his responsibility to provide for his family

The driver is capable of being in control of the situation

Which situation is he in control of? The employment situation, or the reading a text situation?

Yes, the driver is responsible for his actions, and NOBODY has claimed otherwise. But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position (of having to choose between keeping his job and looking at a text) in the first place? THAT is what the judge is getting at, and you have not provided any valid argument against it.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.

Everything you say about the driver applies to you, too. If you know that the other person is driving a car then why are you continuing to text them? Yes, you could send them a text that says, when you get home, call (or whatever), but the moment they respond and you respond back, you are now a willing participant in their distraction.

I don't view this a stripping people of moral responsibility, but just the opposite. Just like you shouldn't text and drive, if you know somebody is driving, don't text them, either. It is illegal for a 16 year old to drink, but nobody would argue that offering one a beer doesn't make you liable because the 16 year old has free will and could refuse the beer. Likewise, the court is saying doing something you know is wrong makes you liable.

Re:Idiocracy

[X0563511]

No kidding. That's just irresponsible. But nope, can't say "fuck" on the radio because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Idiocracy

[thedonger]

People vastly overreact to the threat of peanuts. My little sister is extremely allergic to peanuts and has been since she was a child. So allergic that a peanut touching her skin raises a welt. She grew up in a house where 6 other people ate peanut butter all the time like it was liquid crack. The real stuff, too - Teddy - not that Jiff or Skippy hydrogenated junk. She went to public school. She lives a normal life, but with an Epipen in her purse. As with damn near everything else a vocal minority have created a huge scare over something that while potentially deadly is easily avoidable.

Re:Idiocracy

[cayenne8]

While I don't know of any cases involving peanut butter, there are plenty involving perfume and cologne where an employee is allergic to strong smells from these substances and other employees are prohibited from using them at the workplace (or even teachers if a student has the condition). Violation of the prohibition costs one their job. By definition, if you lose your job for bringing the banned substance to work because of an allergy another employee has, you are in fact being held accountable [for your actions].

Are you fucking serious?!?!?

Just because one person has some sort of deficiency or problem that limits everyone else in the whole building!?!?!

Why is the onus on all the normal people, and not on the person with the isolated problem???

Geez, why are we always catering to the lowest common denominator for everything these days?

I've never heard of such a thing, and I've worked in govt offices in the past which would likely be the nutjob jobsites that would try to enforce such a thing....

Re:Idiocracy

[EMG at MU]

But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos (sic) of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position (of having to choose between keeping his job and looking at a text) in the first place? THAT is what the judge is getting at, and you have not provided any valid argument against it.

You're begging the question of the drivers job being on the line based on a binary decision: read the text and break the law, or ignore the text and lose job.

Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss? How do you know that the boss didn't assume that is what the driver would do because it is illegal to text and drive. How do you know there isn't a text to speech device that reads out texts as the driver gets them (actually pretty common in commercial trucks).

If the boss forced the driver to read the text while actively driving, I can see how that should be criminal. But the means of force need to be more serious than the driver didn't want to pull over for a few min to read his phone. If the boss sends a text and the driver decides to read it instead of pulling over, the boss has no control over that and should not be implicated.

Re:Idiocracy

[DarkOx]

But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position

Because when you try and make everyone responsible for everything the outcome is nobody is responsible for anything. The next level out is someone is going to suggest the telco can reasonably know if a phone is in a moving vehicle; so how come they failed to hold the messages until the phone was not observed to be traveling at rate a speed beyond a running human?

In your case I could argue the Boss has special reason to if not know at least think the trucker is going to be driving, after all its what he is paying the guy to do all day. So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages? He could do this before departing a fuel stop for example.

At somepoint you just have to say, he wait the trucker is they guy behind at the controls of 18 tons of steel, he needs to be doing everything in his power to make that safe. Ultimately its his choice and his alone to read that text message or not.

If his boss is insisting he does something illegal that endangers his safety in the work place (his truck); I am sure OSAH or someone at the DOL would love to hear about it. We have all this government for some reason right? Maybe he should use it?

Re: Idiocracy

[B1oodAnge1]

by that same argument you would have to ban all time based performance metrics for any commercial drivers, since they would encourage speeding. At some point you have to let the driver be responsible for complying with the law.

Re:Idiocracy

[Artifakt]

"Driver alledges his dispatcher told him to answer the phone even while driving and he did so, claiming this led to the accident. Company has written records of disciplining some driver employees for not immediately answering phone calls, and ex-employees are available to testify that this was cited by their management in termination. Preliminary investigation showed dispatcher and management did not know the laws of the state where the acccident occurred re. cell phone use. Dispatcher and other management had signed statements on record with their insuror stating they educated their drivers in all applicable state and local laws as part of regular training, and in fact were given a discount on insurance prices for their internal safety program."
            That's not a hypothetical - that's settled case law. That's two independent lines of proof, either of which would probably have resulted in the same court decision by itself. The company in question paid millions for both the settlement and in fines by the time the whole matter was over.

Re:Idiocracy

[dyingtolive]

It is illegal for a 16 year old to drink, but nobody would argue that offering one a beer doesn't make you liable because the 16 year old has free will and could refuse the beer. Likewise, the court is saying doing something you know is wrong makes you liable.

I dislike this example. How about this:

It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.

It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility. If only we could just bubble wrap every surface so thickly that no one ever gets hurt, ever.

Re:Idiocracy

[CanHasDIY]

My wife suffers from Celiac Disease; essentially, she's highly allergic to all forms of gluten, be it from wheat, barley, malt, what-have-you. Not deathly allergic, but pretty damn close. Say what you want, but until you've spent 2-3 days shitting and vomiting almost non-stop from something as simple as accidentally ingesting a small amount of bread or taking a sip of a malt, you have no idea what she deals with and should subsequently shut your fucking mouth.

Anyway, we understand that her condition is our problem, not anyone else's, and thus she pretty much keeps it to herself as she's not a completely narcissistic bitch. I.e., "people like you."

P.S. "Rights," whether real or perceived, have nothing to do with it - nobody is responsible for your health or safety but yourself.

Re:Idiocracy

[CanHasDIY]

Everything you do is your responsibility.

FTFY.

Re:Idiocracy

[CyprusBlue113]

Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

Objection: A good many people absolutely can die within minutes from just touching what amounts to peanut dust. I work with someone like that and I've seen it personally.

Re:Idiocracy

[ATMAvatar]

People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.

A better analogy would be a case where everyone but you was a carrier of a disease and you were the only person in the area who could suffer severe adverse affects from it... like if your immune system was destroyed.

You may note that in that case, you would be put in a bubble.

Re:Idiocracy

[Obfuscant]

The "lowest common denominator" is the vocal minority who feel their "right" to bring a peanut butter sandwich or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness,

Hate to point this out, but if you've got a serious peanut allergy, you've already got an illness. Ditto if you die when you run across a whiff of perfume.

I suppose you'd have no problem with demanding that all your normal employees go through a sterile scrubdown and take broad spectrum antibiotics so you could employ someone with a failed immune system, too. Better to try to modify the general environment for everyone than to keep those who need special environments to stay alive in their own.

Re:Idiocracy

[JWSmythe]

    I happen to be allergic to something that someone wears or uses at work. Last week, I had to spend some time outside, because they walked by my office, and I started sneezing constantly.

    I have no idea who it is, or what it is. Since it doesn't last all day, I assume it's someone reapplying their stink.

    I mentioned it in conversation with one of the executive's assistants. Well, because I was sitting outside sounding like I had a nasty cold that cleared up in about 15 minutes. They told me all I had to do was complain and they'd reinforce the policy against perfumes. I told them I won't complain, and would address it with the person directly if I ever find who it is.

    I was already able to definitely track one stink. It was room air freshener that someone used. I had suspicions. It was confirmed when I walked back into my office and started sneezing just a couple minutes after they had sprayed it. They still use it, but sparingly, and that doesn't make me sneeze. Problem solved. No official paperwork, and no hard feelings. :)

Re:Idiocracy

[Eraesr]

It's a whole different situation. If I bring a peanut butter sandwich to work, then I'm directly responsible for putting my colleague in danger. However, if I'm sending a text message to someone I know is driving, then my sending that text message is in no way directly responsible for whatever accident may happen due to the driver picking up the phone and reading the text message. The big difference is that the driver still has a choice here. It's the driver that makes the choice to check the text message. He isn't forced to. Your allergic colleague doesn't have the choice of being exposed to peanut butter or not (assuming this is a real, terrible case of peanut butter allergy) and has no real way of avoiding the consequences.

Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[studpuppy]

Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game. Called someone you know on their mobile phone? Even the simple act of them having to reach for the phone, or put their bluetooth headset one, or (heck) even press the answer button on their in-dash system could be argued by a lawyer to have caused a distraction. And what's next? Can I be liable simply for waiving at someone from the sidewalk? After all, they may have to turn their head to see who it was that was waiving, and next thing you know.... BLAM! sigh. I sure do love living in NJ at times.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[ZombieBraintrust]

It would apply. If your running a trucking company then you will have procedures for calling your truckers. If those procedures don't involve hands free equipment then the trucking company would be liable. The judge just left wiggle room so a different judge can use common sense.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[TheCarp]

While I disagree that this is that big a deal, especially in light of the evidence that the people who get in accidents with cell phones get in just as many accidents without them (gee what is the common link there?) which seriously makes me think that the whole issue is a matter of not recognizing the inherent self-selection in accident statistics than anything.....

aside from that, this is essentially the same argument I used to make when people would be concerned about me occasionally turning off the ringer on my phone or leaving it somewhere so as not to bother me.

Mom: "What if there was an emergency and your grandmother got hurt?"
Me: "Then you should call the hospital, I am not an ambulance, and have no medical training; I likely can't help."

As if me not knowing the very moment someone died or was seriously injured was somehow important. Yes I may only find out hours later. Yes I may miss the opportunity to see them alive one more time.... no I don' lose any sleep over it.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[David_Hart]

It's really common sense: if you know your buddy is kind of a dumbass about such things, don't text him when you know he's driving. I already have people I apply this rule to.

No, it's not... It doesn't matter if he is a dumbass or not. You are not legally responsible for his behavior. He is.

I applaud your efforts at being a good friend but, in my opinion, that does not diminish his personal legal responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner in any way. Nor does that transfer his legal responsibility to you.

Missing the point of text messages...

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The whole point of text messages is to allow for asynchronous communications with someone. Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text. Could you blame Facebook for pushing an update to your phone while you're driving if you looked at it and crashed?

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Reibisch]

For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.

His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[girlintraining]

'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.

The law doesn't look at this that way, and the judge is basing his opinion squarely within long-standing legal precident. However you want to classify the behavior, the judge still has a strongly defensible position, legally.

Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun. You didn't though, for whatever reason. During the robbery, a security guard shows up. He shoots at you and your friend -- your friend shoots back, killing the guard. You are liable for his death. Yet you weren't armed and in fact, were only shot at. The courts reason that because you had knowledge of the gun ahead of time, you could reasonably foresee its use, and by not stopping your friend you were complicit in allowing it to happen. Say hello to thirty years. Look up felony manslaughter for a more detailed description. Your mere knowledge of that gun is what turned simple robbery into felony manslaughter. If you hadn't known, you wouldn't be ordinarily liable in most jurisdictions.

The law is quite clear on this point: If you have knowledge of illegal activity, regardless of your own intent, etc. and fail to act you're just as guilty as the person who did it. In fact, if the other person has diminished capacity, or extenuating circumstances, you could even face a harsher penalty than they will -- simply by knowing what's going on! You weren't involved at all, but you're the one heading to the slammer.

Yes, this is "just" a cell phone, but legally, it's no different than it being "just" a beer. If you let someone drive home drunk, and they kill someone, there's some guys in blue uniforms outside that want to talk to you. This judge is saying a cell phone is no different, as a legal instrument.

And he's right.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[SJHillman]

Other scenarios that are no more stupid than texting-a-driver-is-illegal.
1) A text makes someone not pull out on time. The texter now owes child support.
2) A text causes someone to forget to clarify no mayo on their double bacon burger. The texter must now pay for liposuction.
3) A text distracts someone from their last minute bid on eBay. Texter must now provide that limited edition, gold plated John Lennon semen.
4) A text distracts an AC for precious seconds, making their First Post the fifth or sixth one down. Ok, this one would have no noticeable effect.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[s.petry]

Your example is absolutely wrong.

An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.

An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.

There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.

Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[pr0fessor]

My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

My wife and I have had this argument...

Wife: "Why didn't you answer my text?"
Me: "I was only a few blocks from the house."
Wife: "Why do you need a cell phone if you don't read your texts."
Me: "Fine next time I'll respond as I'm walking the door instead of actually talking to you."

Then I sit in the same room texting her but not talking to her.

Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[TechyImmigrant]

You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mark-t]

actually, I prefer getting voice calls while driving to text messages, because I can't respond to the latter while driving, while my car has bluetooth, so I can answer an incoming call effectively hands-free with just a single button press, which is located on the steering column.

Telepathy

[Freshly Exhumed]

Thank goodness that our telepathic abilities are so capable that we can all tell from any distance that the other person is driving.

Re:Telepathy

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Unfortunately we can never use our telepathic abilities, because that just might interefere with someone who is driving.

Seriously?

[Murdoch5]

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It's up to the driver to not check his or her phone well driving, thats it. It doesn't matter if people are texting you, calling you or even trying to IM you, just don't pick up the phone. This is another example of the pass the buck system of law making. Lets not make any one person responsible for being irresponsible and immature, lets make everyone deal with the fact no one has grown up.

Re:Bulletin boards

[Whorhay]

This is exactly what I was thinking of.

There are always distractions when you are driving. It is up to each driver to focus on the task of driving their vehicle. If the driver decides to prioritize something else like answering a phone, texting, reading a book, watching a movie, adjusting the stereo, or any one of another million possibilities it is up to them to do so in a safe manner.

April 1st

[CanHasDIY]

Is it just me, or are things getting to the point where nary a day goes by without some headline causing us to check and make sure it's not April Fool's?

I swear, I've never seen policies as ridiculous as what's coming out nowadays. Even Caligula would balk at some of this shite.

Re:Realistically...

[0123456]

World is full of stupid people.

Unfortunately, many of them get to make laws.

Next will be liability for not sending a text

[c0d3g33k]

Driver: "Yo, dude, I'm headed your way. In my car. Driving it myself. Alone. Tell me where you're at so I can pick you up".
Non-driver: I'd better not send a response since I know my friend is driving and sending a text might be a distraction.

Driver sends multiple texts to non-driver:

Driver: "C'mon man, answer me!"
Driver: "Why don't you ANSWER!!!?"
Driver: "WTF!!!! I will spam u with texts until you tell me where you are!!!".
Driver: "U R M8king me crzy!!! Answer!!!".
Driver: Runs over child at school crossing

Lawyer to non-driver: "Why didn't you respond? You clearly knew Driver would continue to text while driving until you responded. If only you had responded, the driver would have put down the phone and driven safely to your location. You are responsible for the accident because you did not take sufficient measures to ensure the driver would stop texting!"

Non-driver: "FML."

With this line of reasoning...

[chocho99]

...why not make the phone companies liable for transmitting the text to you while you are in a moving car. It's not like they don't already know where you are at all times.

Re:With this line of reasoning...

[omnichad]

Passengers. Trains. Subway.

So if I send a text saying

[phorm]

So if I send a text saying

"Call me when you get to [destination]" or "Call me when you're not driving"

what's my liability there?

Simple Math

[imatter]

The more people that are liable the more lawyers you need to defend them.

Well, that escalated quickly.

[VortexCortex]

If I'm going to do the time, might as well do the crime...

If my text messages sent to a driver may cause me to be liable for the crash, then I guess I'll just have to hack the car's Android API and drive it remotely while they answer my text messages.

In other news, traffic reporters held liable...

[Nadaka]

In other news, traffic reporters held liable for distracting drivers on busy roads.

Re:Delayed Messages

[SJHillman]

The summary is about half the length of your post, and yet still answers every question you have. The texter is only liable if they are told or reason to know the text will be viewed specifically while driving.

Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[Valdrax]

Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game.

Yes. If and only if, your actions were negligent (or worse) in doing so. Negligence requires that your actions be a proximate cause of the harm and that the results be reasonably foreseeable.

In the hypothetical laid out by the judge, if you knew the person (a) was a driving AND (b) had a propensity to recklessly respond to messages, then you in fact would bear some responsibility for calling someone with those properties in spite of the known risk in doing so. That is, unless the cost of not contacting the driver was greater than the cost of the harm times the risk of it occurring or unless some affirmative defense like necessity applies. Etc. Etc.

There's nothing especially controversial from a legal standpoint about the argument he's making -- it's a straightforward application of the criteria for negligence.

Re:Obiter dictum

[sanchom]

Ah I'm wrong. But still: > To summarize our conclusions, we do not hold that someone who texts to a person driving is liable for that person's negligent actions.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[TheCarp]

Dunno what happened to it? If you take it from my tone that this was a self control issue, it wasn't, I had no intention to stop texting while driving because I don't see it as inherently dangerous. Nor talking on the phone.

I am pretty convinced that the majority of the issue is the inability of people to recognize the inherent self selection bias in accident data.

Amber alerts

[sect0r0]

Does that mean the state could be held liable if they send amber alerts to someone driving?

Hmm

[Anarchduke]

Does this mean I won't be receiving Amber Alert messages on my cellphone anymore? Because they are sending it to all cellphones, they know for certain some people will receive the text while driving.

Re:Asynchronous ?

[fnj]

Perhaps you could share with us the thought process behind what appears to be an irrational statement?