Slashdot Mirror
Snapchat Sued For Facilitating 107 MPH Car Crash (patch.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A Georgia couple is suing Snapchat, a popular instant messaging and photo sharing app, after a car accident last year seriously injured the husband, leaving him permanently brain damaged. According to media reports, Wentworth Maynard, the victim, was driving in a 55-mile-per-hour zone when 18-year-old Christal McGee crashed into him traveling at 107 miles per hour. McGee, according to lawsuits, was attempting to use Snapchat's "speed filter" -- a feature that overlays the speed one is traveling on a picture. "Snapchat's speed filter facilitated McGee's excessive speeding," reads the lawsuit. "McGee was motivated to drive at an excessive speed in order to obtain recognition through Snapchat by the means of a Snapchat 'trophy.'"
But not fast enough for first post!
I suggest total anarchy and societal result if this is given any merit by the system.
I hate frivolous lawsuits.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
It does make you wonder what Snapchat was thinking with this feature. Did nobody anticipate that jerks would drive crazy speeds because of this thing?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
rookie
Counterproposal: A device that turns off the driver's airbags and seatbelt at speeds more than 30 miles per hour over the limit.
Why limit it to just millennials? A 50 year old person texting behind the wheel is just as dangerous as a 16 year old texting behind the wheel, and you're lying through your teeth if you tell me you haven't seen idiots of all ages glued to their phones instead of the road while driving. Focusing in on stereotyping one generational group instead of actually trying to address the problem generally fails to get anything of merit accomplished.
Yet another case of holding people who have absolutely NOTHING to do with this situation asking to be held responsible for the actions of another. Why don't we hold the person responsible for this... responsible? And before you say "Why does snapchat even have this filter?". Ever heard of passengers? It's the same reason why locking out the phone while driving doesn't work (n-1) people in a vehicle/boat. I for one don't want a stupid world where people not responsible for a situation are responsible.
I know there can be a kneejerk libertarian argument for personal responsibility, but certainly a rational observer could reasonably entertain the idea of "contributory negligence" against Snapchat. If Snapchat enables very easily some behavior that could be considered negligent or law-breaking, some party could sue them for contributing to a reasonably-anticipated outcome of that contribution.
If Snapchat started having a feature called "Number of red lights run!" -- would you defend them from liability?
Does that mean a speedometer motivates you to speed because the speed is displayed? How you use a device/app is up to you though, if you're an idiot then it's your own fault.
you mean like in a motor cycle... yeah that will work!! and no one will ever buy a motor cycle again either.
they are the only industry that has figured out how to earn money on stupid
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
What kind of dumbass tries to pul out on a road where people are driving over 100mph?
http://imgur.com/fxJJCiG
How do you tell the difference between the driver's phone and a passenger's phone? These is little issue with passengers using phones.
While an argument can be made that Snapchat was being idiotic for producing an environment that might entice people to drive faster, the blame still seems to me to fall squarely on the driver that was going too fast. Why are they trying to sue Snapchat? Snapchat wasn't controlling the car in any way, so this whole thing looks very suspect to me.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Do jerks need a reason to drive stupidly fast?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
new law proposal:
for millennials to get drivers licenses, they must install a lockout mechanism in the vehicle, similar to a brethalyzer, that will disable the ignition or accelerator if a phone is active in the vehicle.
right on, maybe using a Bluetooth fence? apple's got a patent for that.
Neither the kid nor the kid's family have deep pockets. So the couple is suing Snapchat because it has deep pockets. Of course, the attorneys will milk every dime.
Before we jump to the assumption that this family went out of their way to file a lawsuit against snapchat because "georgia reasons" lets remember that after an accident, attorneys will market directly to you. Any cut-rate lawyer in the state has probably shilled all parties for relevant interest in a lawsuit. An attorney, however misplaced, has identified a willing party to file a lawsuit against a popular corporation and sadly failed to realize that snapchat has no identifiable revenue stream. Sure, you'll probably enter the courtroom confident in a win..but outside of publicity for winning a suit against a popular online service your billable hours have likely easily usurped Snapchats own guestimate of a one-time 3 million dollar revenue generation.
the real pisser is that in the event snapchat puts up a fight over your definition of "facilitate" (which isnt the strongest here) you risk dragging real victims into court which they may not be prepared for. since you havent specified damages, its likely youre waiting for a settlement based on your "facilitate" defense, but be prepared for the possibility the parties give up, or the judge decides theres a reasonable cap on what you can bleed from a company that...again...doesnt make money.
Good people go to bed earlier.
any feature that risks
http://www.mofo.com/people/a/a...
being on the other side of the table in a lawsuit
SHOULD NOT BE CREATED
i think at MoFo the interns make more money than most of us here
the problem with this is that people commonly use their phones as a GPS.
Both the software engineers and the person driving the car were complete asshats in this situation. What kind of utter moron would think this kind of "feature" in software would be a good thing? What kind of utter moron would be stupid enough to use the feature in this way?
Sue Snapchat? While it's probably the most misguided app feature in a long time, I'm still not sure how they're culpable for somebody recklessly driving. Did they say "hey go out and snap a selfie going as fast as you can! We'll give you a prize?" What about the car manufacturer, it ultimately was the weapon in the crash or how about the cell phone manufacturer for allowing selfies to be taken while the car is in motion? How about the cellular carriers, they allowed the pic to be transmitted while at speed.
I think this is just a blowhard lawyer looking for deep pockets, Snapchat's lawyers will have this out of court in no time. At least their part in the case. This dipshit who caused the crash should be thrown into a deep hole and covered up with peat.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
They should sue the car manufacturer for making a car that could go 107MPH.
The DOT for making a road that is decent enough for a car to travel 107MPH.
The cell company for allowing connections to their cell towers while the user is traveling 107MPH.
The phone maker for not detecting that the car was traveling 107MPH.
The police for not pulling him over before he crashed into their car while traveling at 107MPH.
Snapchat is only the tip of the iceberg here.
Take this sig and smoke it.
I've had two narrowly avoided head-ons with texters holding their phones across the top of their steering wheels, and neither of them were millenials.
They were people roughly my age -- and my first video game system was Pong.
Putting "using Snapchat" (or any other distraction) aside, I've heard of people seeing how fast their cars would go before. Back in college, a close friend of mine went 100mph on a straight, deserted road just to see what it was like. Even then, I told him that was idiotic. I've done 80mph on highways before and I could feel my control of the car slipping. At 85mph, I'd be much more prone to an accident. I couldn't even conceive of doing 100mph. I'm sure there might be some who could do 100mph safely, but this is a minority. Unfortunately, there are a lot more people who think they can do 100mph safely but can't.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Choose your poison: ...sue car manufacturer for adding speedometer to dashboard (it allows users to create selfies with speed), ...sue car manufacturer for allowing excessive speeds in the car, ...sue phone maker for not displaying warning do not operate while driving (like garmin does), ...school system for producing mindless creatures that can't connect action with cause, ...Darwin for creating a trophy that some are destined to win, ...self - for not reading instructions called "life"
Kind of like, just because there was an open container of alcohol in the vehicle, how do we know the DRIVER was partaking? Objections like yours (and mine) do not change anyone's mind because their mind is made up. Authoritarian tools with "go ahead, tread all over me" written on their back will just continue to spout their rote drivel: "well, that proves my point - in both cases the driver MIGHT be fucking up, so screw proof; assume he IS fucking up".
I used it on a plane and sent a snap of me traveling in excess of 600 MPH.
which is why the Garmin and TomTom lobbies will love it! because cell phone gps is killing their standalone gps business.
How do you tell the difference between the driver's phone and a passenger's phone?
A weight sensor in the passenger seat. Many cars already have those, so they can warn if the passenger seat belt is unfastened, and adjust the force of the passenger airbag depending on the size of the passenger. If there is no passenger, then the system could assume that any phone in the car belongs to the driver.
People could bypass the lockout by putting a sandbag in the passenger seat, so it wouldn't be a 100% solution. But an 80% solution may be better than nothing.
We could also, or alternatively, put more resources into self-driving cars and driver assisting technology, such as lane control and automatic braking.
The "open container" issue is linked to drinking in public and not driving so it is a different issue.
If you are a moron yourself!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
new law proposal: for millennials to get drivers licenses, they must install a lockout mechanism in the vehicle, similar to a brethalyzer, that will disable the ignition or accelerator if a phone is active in the vehicle.
I'll ignore the conundrum of passenger phones this time...
A lockout doesn't address the actual problem, which isn't the phone. It's poor driving ability and distractedness. Removing the phone will not stop an idiot from being an idiot, it might help, but isn't a solution.
We need to make the driving tests harder. And not just for new licenses. Teach them about consequences. Perhaps even implement using a phone while on the drive test like this. Simply taking away their toys isn't going to help, they'll find more toys.
Cell phones are fine, making something other than driving your priority when you're driving is not. It's bad decision making, plain and simple. THAT'S what we need to address.
People kill people
Maybe, but he/she is right, that is a fucking moronic knee jerk reaction to a problem caused by morons.
What happens if Mr. MillenialMoron turns their phone on whilst driving ?
You can't just cut the engine without risking causing an accident. Well, you could but then BlackBox Inc. will end up getting sued out of existance.
How do you make sure it can only detect mobiles inside the car ?
Imagine a hot summer day, driving thru town with the windows down.. driving past pedestrians on their phones, and the roads full of crashes caused by moronic black boxes that keep cutting everyones engines off.
I have never used Snapchat but I googled for their trophies and I just don't see any "speed trophy" - there are trophies for all kinds of things, but speeding is not one of them. Could someone please enlighten me what's this trophy they talk about?
Real life is overrated.
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!
It is the driver using the app/device's fault NOT the app's fault, not the phone's fault.
The people filing the suit should be shamed out of the country.
Better sue the car maker that put a speedometer in the car too!
because driving a car without a seatbelt and air bag is just like driving a motorcycle. Yet another Millennial pokes it's head up.
IMHO, assholish police-state laws are all in the same category. Anyway, the reasoning is very much related.
Yep - not to mention the problem with passengers in the car having a phone - or people just hacking the phone to disable whatever triggers they car's lockout.
Besides - with self-driving technology improving as fast as it is, I doubt this will be an issue for much longer anyways. In 15 years very few humans will be "driving" cars.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Let's sue all car manufactures if their velocimeter range is above the current circulation max speed because, obviously, they're inactivating people to break the law.
new law proposal:
for millennials to get drivers licenses, they must install a lockout mechanism in the vehicle, similar to a brethalyzer, that will disable the ignition or accelerator if a phone is active in the vehicle.
Better idea:
Require drivers to take the driving test while talking on the phone. Everybody is going to do it, legal or not. Those who can't handle the multitasking shouldn't be driving anyways. There are always distractions.
That, and increase the penalties for causing a crash. It's not right that someone can murder another driver, make 10,000 people late for work, and then walk away with a $50 "Failure to yield right of way" ticket.
> I think your idea is stupid and that is incentive for me to slap you. Therefore you are responsible (or partly responsible) for the slap.
There's a well-established legal principle that the recipient of a slap can indeed incite the slap. For example, if I were to call your wife a nasty hoe, a fucking cunt, and you immediately punched me in the nose, most jurisdictions would recognize that I would indeed have some responsibility for what happened.
Whether or not you or I LIKE that principle is a different matter, but in fact calling your wife a disease-ridden whore would actually make a punch in the nose likely, and the law does recognise that.
Has McGee been put away behind bars for a good part of his life? His irresponsible behavior of using a smart-phone while driving has caused so much pain and suffering to another family.
Recently I was in an incident that involved using smartphone while driving. One fellow who was busy looking into his smartphone while driving, apparently looking at driving directions, came and hit my vehicle which was static. Luckily no body was injured. Stupids with smartphones.
It's time for people to start taking responsibility for their own actions.
Fine.
But someone at Snapchat programmed and approved an app that even those caught in the Mercedes c230 with this eighteen year old girl knew was an open invitation to floor it for the trophy.
There are a few cases a year (one recent one was local to us) where a dummy uses Periscope to live-stream their drunk driving. Then they're shocked when the police thank them for providing vital evidence in their case. I read this Snapchat story a couple days ago - obviously it finally got far enough in the court system to be picked up publically because it's being reported everywhere now.
It seems to me that if Snapchat weren't a hip, cool Internet startup, something like a speed filter and/or trophy would have immediately been squashed by even the most clueless in-house legal team. In "real businesses" it's their job to ensure that products don't get released that can lead to lawsuits, or if they can, to minimize their impact. I can just see the discussion around a conference table in Snapchat's HQ about this awesome new feature that uses the GPS to tag a user's speed -- "Wouldn't that be epic? "Yeah, let's do it!" was probably the only consideration it was given.
Obviously, the idiot driver was at fault, but if you're an accident victim, you'll try to recover anything you can. Apparently the other driver in the crash is permanently disabled and has traumatic brain injury as a direct result. You can bet that the first thing that Christal's family did after the crash was to hide their assets and declare bankruptcy. Wentworth will wait for decades to get any sort of compensation from insurance companies, let alone punitive damages.
You would need these sensors on every seat in the vehicle. That would be very expensive and error prone.
People could bypass the lockout by putting a sandbag in the passenger seat, so it wouldn't be a 100% solution. But an 80% solution may be better than nothing.
Considering that the people who will Snapchat wile driving already know they are breaking the law I would bet that they would override the sensors much more often. I woulds estimate that the sensors would be a 20% solution at best and be financially prohibitive to many new drivers.
The whole thing reminds me of this Bloom County: http://www.gocomics.com/bloomc...
Chances are the whole lawsuit is predicated on the idea that the plaintiffs will get a lot more from Snapchat than they will from an 18 year old.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
This is a bad idea. There's no reason to restrict passengers from using phones. Drivers may have legitimate reasons to use a phone in the event of an emergency. Why do we need a technological solution when it's simple enough for the police to make it a priority to pull over drivers who are using phones?
I wonder where we draw the line for responsibility when encouraging reckless behavior. If someone threatens to murder another person's family if they don't perform some reckless act, then the one making the threats clearly bears most of the responsibility. Youtube creates an environment for people to get attention by showing off their reckless behavior, thus encouraging it. However, I don't think it's specific enough in the behavior it encourages, and therefore isn't responsible for it. Snapchat's speed overlay seems to be a strong enough, and specific enough of an encouragement that it's largely responsible for the ensuing recklessness. At the very least, I would say that it's as responsible for the behavior as a person directly 'daring' another to go faster, and mocking them for being a coward if they don't do it. Where do you think we should draw the line for encouraging such behaviors?
Most millennials I know are addicted to their phones and can't bear to ignore them for even a moment. Most 50+ I know don't even own a smartphone, nor do they spend any time at all on them. But sure, false equivalence all 'round!
It's not the kid saying "it's not my fault -- it's Snapchat's!" Rather, it's a brain-damaged man and his wife, who obviously aren't going to be able to recover their expenses from the kid (because the kid doesn't have millions and the kid's insurance likely has a liability cap), so they're going after the party who *does* have some money: Snapchat. Snapchat played *some* causal role in this. Ultimately the question whether they are at fault, however, depends on whether Snapchat breached a duty owed to the injured man and his wife--and that's for a jury to decide.
Listen pal, babyboomers have had to listen to this "greatest generation" bullshit for 50 years. It's our turn now, and if we say it's the Millennials fault, then it's the Millennials fault. Get with the program.
is the world now
Look it, that 18 year old probably doesn't have a pot to piss in.
Now, we have a guy who is brain damaged and is going to need millions of dollars worth of medical, rehab, and accommodations built into his home over a lifetime.
And then there's the loss of companionship.
Insurance won't cover all of that and neither does disability - it's chump change.
So, where do you think the victim is going to get the money to pay for that?
If that's the case, then 50+'s should have no issues installing these devices in their cars for when they inevitably lend their car to their children.
I think this quote from TFA sums it up perfectly.
A warning when users first open the speed filter feature urges them not to use it while driving.
So why would the couple sue Snapchat? Sue the dumb bitch that thought going over 100mph while trying to take a picture on her iPhone was a good idea.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Pics or GTFO
Nope, no sig
One person pulls out in front of another, ILLEGALLY (the car sueing was ticketed for pulling out wrongly),
In addition, we have an 18 y.o driver (2 years of experience), WITH A FRIEND, driving over 100 MPH in a 55, while using a phone illegally, and the car goes after snapchat.
What our fascists does not destroy, lawyers will.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Some idiot drove at excessive speeds and crashed into an innocent driver's car, ruining his life. The idiot, Christal McGee, chose to drive recklessly. It wasn't an accident, it was a crash. Calling the crash an accident suggests Christal is somehow innocent of having made the choice to be an idiot. She's lucky it wasn't vehicular manslaughter. It's like cops shooting people and pets and then documenting the incident as "the gun went off" or a political leader starting an illegal war and then washing his hands of responsibility with a passive "mistakes were made".
"It wasn't my fault, it just suddenly happened. The fact that I happened to be in the vicinity is completely coincidental and irrelevant."
Bullshit.
There used to be this large piece of paper that had pictures and lines on it, it folded up really neatly, and it could be placed in a side door or glove box. Responsible persons would pull over on the side of the road to read it and figure out if they were following the right path.
I forget what this thing was called, because now I can't think for myself when I let my phone do all that.
Just a bit faster and he could have also gotten the Vehicular Manslaughter badge.
and you're lying through your teeth if you tell me you haven't seen idiots of all ages glued to their phones instead of the road while driving.
I honestly have never seen anyone in the preteen or supercentenarian age groups drive while looking at a phone. No lie.
"The heat of passion" is a vaguely similar concept related to CRIMINAL culpability, most often mentioned as a difference between 1st degree murder and 2nd.
Civil law (suing somebody) is concerned with CAUSATION. Did the defendant do something which partially caused the harm? Comparative negligence specifically is the idea that separate actions by two or more people are often involved, so one may be 75% liable and the other 25%.
The general causation test is the "but for" test. Plaintiff asserts that the harm wouldn't have happened but for the defendant's action or inaction. In other words, is this statement true:
If Snapchat didn't advertise the speed , the collision would not have occurred.
If the above is true, they helped cause the accident and share liability unless they have some specific defense. The fact that they knowingly market the app to the 16-22 year old market could suggest they would be negligent (not careful) about promoting unsafe driving, given that they know their users in in age group prone to unsafe driving.
Nothing above represents my opinion of how the case should be decided. I don't know all of the relevant facts of the case. The above comments are about what the relevant law is, not what I think it -should- be.
252 km/h (156 mph) in a Porsche on the Autobahn.
I took a pic of the speedometer with my phone, but have no independent GPS verification from snapchat that I just didn't adjust the digital display with Photoshop.
Sigh...
( It's $350 to rent one for the day incase you're wondering )
Ummm, no. almost every state disallows open containers of alcohol in any passenger accessible area of the car.
To comply with the TEA-21 rules of the federal Department of Transportation, a state's motor vehicle open container laws must:
Prohibit both possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and consumption of any alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle;[16]
Cover the passenger area of any motor vehicle, including unlocked glove compartments and any other areas of the vehicle that are readily accessible to the driver or passengers while in their seats;[16]
Apply to all open alcoholic beverage containers and all alcoholic beverages, including beer, wine, and spirits that contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume;[16]
Apply to all vehicle occupants except for passengers of vehicles designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of people for compensation (such as buses, taxi cabs, and limousines) or the living quarters of motor homes;[16]
Apply to all vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the shoulder) of a public highway;[16]
Require primary enforcement of the law, rather than requiring probable cause that another violation had been committed before allowing enforcement of the open container law.[16]
Currently, 39 states and the District of Columbia are in compliance.[16] Alaska, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Wyoming have similar limits on the possession of open containers in vehicles, but not to the level of TEA-21 compliance.
Does it matter that much if the passenger yelling "Faster, FASTER! Almost there" does the snapping?
who would buy a phone with this feature.
Either you never text and drive which makes this feature useless
or
you text and drive at least sometimes which makes this aggressively anti customer and makes you more likely to buy from a competator
The passenger could be doing the same the from the back seat and using the car speedometer. You can't ban stupid.
People seem to have forgotten where to sue smart phones.
While driving is NOT one of those places.
Darwin Runner-up?
There are states with open container laws in the vehicle even if you blow a null. Cop's discretion (or court's) if you were just taking cans to recycling.
who has more to take? The kid/parents or the bullshit web 2.0 company with the hyper inflated valuation?
Makes about as much sense as suing a firearms manufacturer for the murders committed by someone who happened to have their product.
In 15 years very few humans will be "driving" cars.
Even if they stopped making human-driven cars today, it would certainly take more than 15 years for your scenario to happen.
I drive a 1994 Dodge Dakota.
"Fighting words" is a free speech term, related to the state criminalizing certain actions which include speech as a component of the crime. In other words, "fighting words" means the state can make it ILLEGAL to call someone a "god damn cocksucker".
Again, civil law (suing someone) is concerned with CAUSATION. Violating a contract isn't a CRIME, but it may cause damages, for which you can be sued. Failing to set the parking brake on your car isn't a crime, but it may cause damage, and you'd be liable for the damage in a civil suit. You're responsible for any damage you cause; whether or not your action is criminal is completely separate.
Calling someone names may cause a fight. That's all a civil law suit cares about, cause and effect. It doesn't MATTER whether those particular insults constitute a criminal offense in that particular situation, and in that particular jurisdiction. If my actions cause damage to you, I owe you to make right the damage, unless some specific exception applies.
Here, if Snapchat said to teenagers "we'll give you a trophy if you drive over 100 MPH", that could have caused some teenagers to drive over 100 MPH. It's so far unclear what exactly Snapchat did, what kind of trophy may have been offered.
A 92' Geo metro on a canyon road? 100mph in a decent car feels like 50, aside from things going by faster. 85-90 is speed of traffic in the southwest on 75MPH roads. As someone mentioned, the autobhan *average* speed is 88mph and their fatality rate is much lower than ours. I'll bet it has a lot to do with drivers being much more attentive at higher speeds.
what append to law suit against strava? they add a dangerous notice to some segments
+1 Funny
(I am a Millennial)
Given their actions, I would argue that the husband was brain damaged before the accident occured.
You may want to get out more and meet more people than just your little sister and your pops.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
This is like blaming the fast food restaurant because you're fat.
If I were the judge in this case, it would be tossed out in seconds.
If there was a warning not to do it, then it's proof they knew it could have the ability to incite people to do it.
It's the recording it for all of your friends to see that is alleged to be contributory enough to attach liability. That is what the speed filter is explicitly for.
Subject says it all
The temperature filter also records the temperature when taking the picture. Does that mean that Snapchat should be libel for someone who encloses themselves in a car on a hot day and dies of heat stroke? Displaying a measurement is not an inducement to take that measurement to the extreme.
The speed warning signs that tell people how fast they are going all have maximum speeds they will display and most of them have switches to set the max for a given road so people don't try to get the high score.
That sets enough precedent that snapchat should have considered a an upper limit and if there are any internal documents even mention "high score" and ways around it, they better have a very good reason not to do it or the jury will award a massive payout.
It would be trivial to find a traffic professional engineer to show up in court and explain this to the jury.
At least in that case, only the individual id10t cooks.
This was an easily predictable outcome. Automobiles are a necessity of sorts. An app that puts your speed on a pic is not.
Pay attention!
Kid's don't need to be driving and texting at the same time.
Someone wanting to defend that?
Think about this: Your first DUI may be your last :-(
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
> I don't see how the corporation encouraged this behavior. If there was a "trophy", yes. However, as far as I know, the trophies are from third party sites and not from Snapchat.
The plaintiff says Snapchat has/had a "100 MPH" trophy. Somebody who posted a comment here says they didn't. I don't know. That fact, and the other relevant facts, will come out at trial if not before. I'm not assuming either side is right at this point. I'm just saying that IF Snapchat knowingly, recklessly, or negligently caused an increased risk of crashes, they can be held liable, with comparative negligence (shared fault) in many states.
Most 50+ I know don't even own a smartphone, nor do they spend any time at all on them.
They don't spend any time on the phones they haven't got? Gee, who'da thought it!
I have every sympathy for the guy who got wiped out in the crash - he's facing up to what may well be lifelong impairments and I can see why the family might be looking for money because care etc for those sort of injuries is not cheap.
But I hope they lose the suit against Snapchat because they aren't responsible here - is the filter a bit of a stupid idea? Certainly. Is it aimed at people who traveling in cars or other vehicles at high speed? Sounds like it. But that doesn't make them responsible for what happened, this girl is someone who is supposedly responsible enough to drive, and she is the one who made the decision that driving at 100+ while dicking around on Snapchat was a good idea (Oh and with a pregnant woman in the car as well). Honestly she sounds like someone who shouldn't be trusted to be driving a pedal car!
Drunk drivers killed my cousin im suing ford.
You CAN fix stupid...it's called "death".
Unfortunately, it's usually someone else who dies as the result of the actions of the stupid person.
Since it says the couple is suing, I'm more interested in knowing how the husband is managing to pull this one off. There's a snapchat trophy for that, right?
You're really passionate about this particular issue and a lack of involvement on snap chats part. The data available on the internet was clearly spelled out to you above by NYCL but you are continuing to double down on the derp. I'm a betting man. I feel reasonably comfortable making the claim that you're a snap chat employee. No one else in this entire thread is white knighting them like you are. You care about this case far too much to just be hating on frivolous lawsuits. If course, you'll claim you aren't but your posts indicate something else at work you aren't sharing with us.
This is the fault of the idiot who attempted to drive 107 MPH and only him. If we are going to blame snapchat then perhaps we should blame the manufacturer of this persons car for building an engine that can reach such a speed, other manufacturers for failing to build a car that can withstand any crash including being hit by a car going 107 MPH, all levels of government for designing a highway where someone is capable of driving recklessly without being stopped by law enforcement, etc. Sure a manufacturer will tell you that their car can go a maximum speed of 130 MPH but would also explain that it is highly recommended that you don't attempt to drive at high speeds since chances are you will crash and if you cause damage to your engine, transmission, or other moving parts, they will not cover repairs under warranty since they don't recommend customers drive their vehicle at such speeds. Common sense would also tell you that this is a bad idea.
Trophies only have meaning to those who want them to.
The numbers the needle hits on your speedometer is a sort of trophy. I can not think of one teenage friend who has never tried to get that speedometer to 160 kph. Because all kids think that 100 mph is a sort of social trophy. So later they can say: "Yeah, I did that."
IMO: The only responsible party is a speeding driver. It don't matter who or what encouraged them to get there. That is why we demand age restrictions and a license, because driving is the drivers responsibility. Driving in public is not meant for trophy seekers.