Texter Not Responsible For Textee's Car Accident, Rules Judge 200
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."
Who proved the collision was an accident? (Score:2, Informative)
The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.
Please stop politicizing the headlines, Slashdot.
Re:Who proved the collision was an accident? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada also has reasonable tort laws and malicious prosecution rules that would have prevented this case from ever getting before a judge in the first place.
It was certainly negligence, and the people in question have every right to go after the insurance company of the driver for lost wages, hardship, etc. The insurance company can, in turn, go after the driver to recoup their losses, as you are correct that this is criminal negligence and the driver was not obeying the rules of the road. The driver's girl
Re: (Score:2)
Canada also has reasonable tort laws and malicious prosecution rules that would have prevented this case from ever getting before a judge in the first place.
Yeah that doesn't stop people from going insane, and trying to make it like the US though. At least sanity rules the day.
Re: (Score:2)
The collision appears to be caused by negligence, and was not simply an accident. "Accident" is a euphamism, a weasel word designed to make the violation appear less severe.
Please stop politicizing the headlines, Slashdot.
I've generally heard (and used) the word accident to describe pretty much any collision other than one where the driver was deliberately aiming to hit someone.
Re: (Score:2)
I've generally heard (and used) the word accident to describe pretty much any collision other than one where the driver was deliberately aiming to hit someone.
I've seen "deliberately caused an accident" a few times, as absurd as it sounds.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen "deliberately caused an accident" a few times, as absurd as it sounds.
In North Korea, you can apparently be sentenced to death by traffic accident [yahoo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Admit it, you have been watching "Hot Fuzz" [imdb.com] haven't you?
Re: (Score:2)
The way I read the article, nothing suggests the collision was caused by negligence. I think the article would have been written differently if this was the case. An attentive driver might have resulted in a 25 mph collision instead of a 45 mph collision, or hitting a car in another lane to avoid hitting the motorcycle...
Re: (Score:2)
That's a word which has been used for a very long time, and does not in any way imply there was no fault. While it may lessen the impact of the concept, it's not really that much different than referring to a public toilet as a "bathroom" or "restroom." It is a common colloquial term, well-understood within this context (at least in the US). The cause for its use is much more likely to be as a result of the editor in question being a product of their culture than an actual intent to politicize the story.
Re: (Score:3)
This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!
Re: (Score:2)
This proves that you haven't yet broken your conditioning by Big Oil and the pro-automobile lobby to trivialize the problems of living in an automobile-centric society. Wake up!
And this proves that you haven't broken your conditioning of being Bat Shit Crazy!
They are properly termed "traffic collisions" (Score:2)
Back in another life when I worked in law-enforcement the correct term to use was "traffic collision." This is how you will see it reported on the California Highway Patrol incident page: http://cad.chp.ca.gov/ [ca.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain why such detail is necessary. Simply the word "collision" is all that's needed for this headline.
Good ruling in THIS case..... (Score:5, Insightful)
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'.
Re:Good ruling in THIS case..... (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO, $775.00 USD is way too small compensation for two innocent victims
That was a penalty, not compensation. They're still sorting that bit out.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how when we're talking about life and limb, the penalty is much less than the compensation. But when it comes to mp3s, the penalty is far far in excess of what would be compensatory.
Re:Good ruling in THIS case..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you understand why? If you watch a youtube video with a song in it, you're depriving the artist of money for their work. It's just like cutting off the hands that played the instrument. But in today's society, these rights are held by corporations which are made up of thousands of people. That's thousands and thousands of hands that you cut off on purpose. Of course there's a higher penalty than smashing off two legs accidentally!
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch a youtube video with a song in it...It's just like cutting off the hands that played the instrument.
I have no idea where you crazy copyright-lobby-sympathizers come up with these absolutely ridiculous analogies, but seriously - no one is buying it!
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea where you crazy copyright-lobby-sympathizers come up with these absolutely ridiculous analogies, but seriously - no one is buying it!
That's the problem. They're downloading it for free instead.
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly have trouble identifying satire.
At least, I hope that's satire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh...that was not mentioned in TFA.
The few bits they did give out was the $775 fine and 50 hours community service.
I would have linked to both rulings if I had submitted this one. :-)
Thanks for the update/correction!
775 fine for permanently disabling two people?! (Score:3)
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
Re: (Score:2)
In my city, you have to keep the sidewalk clear of ice. You can get a $100 penalty for not doing it. It's rarely enforced unless they're trying to lay pressure on an absentee landlord, or if you live in a wealthier area.
Anyway, if somebody slipped and hurt themselves because I didn't maintain my sidewalk, I would totally get slapped with a $100 fine. The city wouldn't pursue it further because that's all I've done wrong. On the other hand, the person who slipped could sue me for medical bills, etc.
In this
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
This is america. As no corporations were harmed in the accident, they don't give a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA, the charge was "distracted driving", not something closer in meaning to "crashing into a vehicle/motorcycle and causing injury" or even "failure to control vehicle". The fine & speaking tour seems more reasonable to me considering it was for the distracted driving charge. I've known people to get more tickets in no-injury collisions.
Reading the article, it looks like this happened in 2009, and no other charges or details were mentioned - so I'm guessing there is more to the story here. There are
Re: (Score:2)
The US legal system seperates civial law suits from criminal law.
Criminal law applies punishment based on what laws were broken. This usually includes fines, and may include punishment such as license suspension and jail time. If he had been drunk when he hit the motorcyclist, he'd probably be in jail now. But texting isn't treated the same way, so the punishment isn't severe. The fines here are probably along the lines of 'distracted driving, resulting in bodily injury.' The facts of this case are probably
Re: (Score:2)
Penalties are generally small and systematic. For moving violations (driving offenses), you often don't even get much protection in the way of trial by jury. You speed, you get a penalty. They're independent of the damage caused. Since they're easily and often incurred, they're relatively cheap.
Since they're systematic, they can be sorted out very early in the case. Damages are sure to come later (after someone is determined to be at fault). Damages in this cause are sure to be substantial.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment.
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
The US has a rather long history of tempered justice, going back to John Adams defending the British soldiers accused of deliberately firing into a crowd and killing civilians, the infamous Boston Massacre. The mob wanted hangings, but Adams famously said, "facts are stubborn things" and the jury agreed and acquitted most of them.
The fines and jail time only ramp up when there is intent, or disregard for the law (e.g. hit and run). If you screw up accidentally, you're expected to pay damages equivalent to,
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody with more knowledge ofthe US legal system explain what appears to be a tiny penalty for crashing into and permanently disabling two people? I would have expected a more serious punishment. Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
In the U.S. it is very easy to get a driver's license, and punishments for driving offenses is usually little more than a fine and some "points" on the license. (Too many points means you lose your license.) You will also be charged higher insurance rates
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a typical punishment for this kind of crime?
Yes, it's fairly typical for the government fine.
In cases like this there are two transfers of money. One to the government, and one to the victims of the crime.
Generally the fine that goes to the government is in the 2-3 digit range, occasionally 4. Rarely is there ever a fine at the $10,000 level or above that goes to the government or courts.
The next fine that will happen goes to the victims. This however will likely be huge, since he will have to pay for both medical bills, pain and suffering, and ot
Re: (Score:2)
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'.
wow, that's brutal. he won't be able to afford an iPhone 4S without signing up for a new contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I see no one here has yet said, If your going to ride motorcycles you should accept at least some of the risk of injury. Cars hit each other all the time, human reactions are not perfect, sometimes they could be avoided, maybe even most of the time, but when a car hits another car at 20-30mph there is a fair chance that only minor injuries will occur, when a motorcycle hits (or is hit by something) something at 20-30 mph there is a fair chance major injuries will occur. Sure motorcycles can be fun, so can
it is an interesting bit of moral responsibility (Score:3)
if i get the sense i'm talking to someone who is driving, i will say "are you driving? i'll get off the phone"
it's not about being a hyperactive boy scout, it's not about the law, it's about living with myself. because if i am on the phone with someone while they are driving and i am AWARE of it, then i am responsible for continuing the conversation, and helping to keep the driver distracted
i have to live with myself. and i have to respect myself
Re:it is an interesting bit of moral responsibilit (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't answer the IM, it remains in your inbox just like an email. If you are unavaliable to take the call, IM, or Email while driving, let it go to voicemail, inbox, etc. I'll still be there when you have time to deal with it.
In many places distracted driving due to phone use is illegal. My contacts know I don't take calls while driving, but I am aware I have a message, either voicemail or text.
The illegal act or dangerous act was the driver's responsibility. I'm not sure if texting while driving is lillegal where he was, but it is still dangerous, which was demonstrated by the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your responsibility to make sure the other person is behaving properly. Do you ask if they just put the baby in the bath, or put a pan full of oil on the stove? I kind of doubt it.
On plenty of occasions, I have answered to say "I'm driving, I'll call you back in a few." If I'm of the belief that where I am driving is too difficult to even do that, I let the phone ring. It's the difference between a long straight empty highway, or navigating city streets with ot
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you should read what he wrote. That's exactly what he said. It is out of a sense of responsibility, and he does "sense" if they are driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you are Catholic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. And I almost forgot:
And if you ARE Catholic, then you simply go to confession sometime afterward, and it's all cool.
Morally, at least. As so-defined.
YMMV (my own mileage certainly does vary).
Different than FB (Score:2)
slap on the wrist: (Score:3)
"Best was ordered to speak to 14 high schools about the dangers of texting and driving and had to pay about $775 in fines, but his driver's license was not suspended."
would have been pretty far fetched if you'd be liable for sending txt's as distraction to someone though... quite ridiculous even. but as publicity stunt it works ok. anyhow, terrorists should just drive around in vans with gas containers texting each others it seems, it's a pretty low fine for putting two people on insurance living for the rest of their lives. (yay a card!).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm
He should have been banned from driving for 5+ years and been given a much larger fine. The community service is absolutely nothing, it is certainly not going to act as any form of deterrent for other morons that drive whilst texting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is inappropriate to not revoke his license. Making his way to the schools on foot or public transport might give him sufficient time to reflect on his actions and the damage he has caused to these peoples lives.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's really not inappropriate at all. He's proven that he can't be trusted to handle a motor vehicle, suspend his ass. Don't want his kind on the roads, and maybe having to pay a few bucks for bus fares might teach him a lesson.
I don't see why punishment for committing a crime has to be convenient for the criminal. That's the sort of dumb shit that got him the pathetically low sentence in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I don't see a problem with him being allowed to keep his license given that he has been ordered to carry out community service at locations that are likely outiside any reasonable walking distance from his residence
Maybe forcing him to ride a motorbike would be better punishment?
If I were the judge i'd definitely be making inquiries about banning him from holding a phone capable of any form of messaging for 5 years though.
Re: (Score:2)
But wait for the insurance settlement (Score:2)
The fact that he gets a light fine means nothing when the *CIVIL LAWSUIT* is prepared. Unless otherwise mentioned, I assume he has liability insurance. His insurance company will probably settle out of court with the motorcyclists. They have an open+shut case, and a jury will be very sympathetic to them, so the insurance company will probably pay very close to their initial demands.
Going after his girlfriend is sleazy, however. That crosses the line.
Sensible decision from the Judge (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmm
The only person responsible for the accident was the driver of the car. He chose to read the text messages whilst driving. What I cannot understand is the reasoning from the courts as to the decision handed down to the driver of the car. Such a serious accident and he did not even get banned from driving? As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
Re: (Score:2)
As a motorcyclist that has to contend with car drivers paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state that the driver should have been penalised much more severely for his actions.
I ride motorcycles too, out on the open road though, never in traffic... Punishing the absent minded drivers won't mean a damn thing when you finally win the Darwin award.
Re: (Score:3)
I also ride motorcycles. After reviewing many fatal motorcycle accidents, I"ve come to the conclusion that 99% of them can be avoided by careful riding on the part of the biker... even while sharing the road with brain-dead car drivers.
#1 rule for avoiding fatal accidents is to slow the fuck down while crossing an intersection. In every single fatal accident involving a left-turning car that I've seen, even though technically the car is at fault, the biker was traveling at excessive speed. Most city streets
Re: (Score:2)
Then what's the damn point in riding a bike? Save on gas, crawl from point A to point B and claim "I rode 100
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read the paragraph which said,
"I personally will be violating this rule because I ride sportbikes, but if you ride Harleys or Goldwings you can do this."
Re: (Score:2)
This attitude just goes to show that as a bike rider you see the highways as your personal race course / play thing
Re: (Score:2)
#1, because I couldn't bear to read any further:
In Ohio (at least), most city streets (as in, everything not otherwise-marked or a designated State Route) are restricted to 25 MPH.
Navigating a turn at an intersection in any vehicle at 30MPH is likely to get one all-sorts of fucked up if the road is not abundantly clear, because nobody around expects that.
In social aspects, it's also likely to alert your passengers to the fact that you're a madman, because you're going fast enough to scare them.
In traffic as
Re: (Score:2)
As a cager that has to contend with motorcyclists paying insufficient attention to the road on a daily basis, I have to state the the driver did us all a service by removing two dangerous hazards from the road.
I pay a great deal of attention to motorcycles when I drive -- though for my own protection. Motorcyclists seem to do incredibly stupid and dangerous things every time they're around me.
Just a few days ago, for example, some moron on a motorcycle decided to pass me on the right (the shoulder, not a different lane) while I was making a right turn on to a busy highway. Had I not expected him to do something incredibly stupid when I saw him behind me, I'd have run right in to him. (What's worse, he shouted some obscenity at me as he drove past, as though it was my fault he was putting his life and my fender unnecessarily at risk.)
I would state that motorcyclists that do not pay sufficient attention to the road do not remain motorcyclists for very long through either through death or serious injury. As for removing 2 dangerous hazards from the road, I have not seen any information that says they contributed to the accident in any way, therefore you appear to be tarring all motorcyclists with the same brush due to past encounters with moronic bikers.
There should be a price (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is for court ordered events and really it's best for the bailiff to do it. It reduces overhead that way. An immediate reaction after which the guilty party being duly punished in a court of law may go.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I don't care. Old women. Children. Who ever wants to do it. You file a bs lawsuit and the court determines it to be frivolous by the legal strictures of the court... Immediate punch to the face.
If the person has some sort of head injury we can give them a court ordered punch to the gut or possibly a really wicked indian burn.
Possibly really really spicy indian food that they are forced by law to eat.... you know the stuff that makes you feel like you're crapping acid for at least two days?
Or maybe hydr
Force people to text and drive (Score:2)
They tried this at a driving school in Belgium. Most people realised pretty quickly how dangerous it was [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
It's certainly reasonable for someone to think, "this lawyer's advice is awfully illogical and almost evil." But the law is a regulated profession. How often is common sense really useful in law? We trust lawyers, enforced by regulation, to give their clients good legal advice because a client cannot be expected to differentiate between a good and a bad legal strategy. The same is true of doctors or any other licensed and regulated profession. You should be comfortable in trusting the advice of your lawyer;
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, regulated by lawyers. What the fuck is up with that? That is why legalize is so hard to understand. It's so they can keep regulating themselves by arguing that the average person can't understand law without a degree. But I guess that is especially true when you invent a language that requires years of schooling to understand. But really, that is just the cost to join the club where you get to fuck with people's lives and if you do something wrong, some other guys in
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they had stopped and thought about it for a second they would have realized that the ONLY person responsible was the one driving the car.
Just because the driver of the car got off lightly on criminal charges doesn't mean that they can't sue him for ruining their quality of life.
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's greed that motivates two people who've both lost limbs due to someone else's reckless driving to sue whomever their lawyer says they should name in the suit.
The job of the lawyer is to suggest all possible avenues of recourse. The job of the people in the accident is to realize that the person sending the text is in no way responsible and telling the lawyer not to submit them to a frivolous lawsuit.
If someone doesn't have a lawyer on retainer, it's going to cost them hundreds of dollars to deal with being sued, even if they're completely innocent.
Re:Also good news for... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
to sue whomever their lawyer says they should name in the suit
If this was their lawyer's suggestion, they should actually be suing him for legal malpractice.
Re:At first... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't consider it douchebagy to sue an innocent person just because they have money?
Douchebaggery (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [caranddriver.com] that texting while driving is more dangerous [cnbc.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The recipient of such messages is in complete control as to whether or not to acknowledge such messages. Although this might on the surface seem similar to cases where a bartender was held responsible for serving a 'drunk', in this case, the recipient of the messages is in full control of their faculties.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Suing a person who has no involvement just because they have money clearly qualifies as douchebaggery.
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
? 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.
Re:At first... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having bad things happen to you does NOT EVER give you a free pass to cause bad things to happen to others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
suing is not "causing bad things to others". it is simply asking a judge "don't you think this person owes me money because of his behavour?". The judge said no, case closed. explain to me the harm they have caused to anyone aside from the inconvenience to walk to court? something that incidentally the defendant did not even do?
But then again, if you cannot even muster the sympathy to excuse the act of "slightly inconveniencing" by the injured couple, I don't think we can ever agree.
Of course you don't have
Re: (Score:2)
suing is not "causing bad things to others". it is simply asking a judge "don't you think this person owes me money because of his behavour?". The judge said no, case closed. explain to me the harm they have caused to anyone aside from the inconvenience to walk to court?
Sorry, no. Suing someone is saying, "I think this person has done me harm enough that I will take the court's time and incur legal fees to get what I think is coming to me."
For someone who doesn't have a lawyer on retainer, being sued will generally cost a minimum of several hundred dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
suing is not "causing bad things to others". it is simply asking a judge "don't you think this person owes me money because of his behavour?". The judge said no, case closed.
Sure, as long as they pay the defendant's court costs for bringing such a stupid lawsuit, I'm okay with it. (as it is the article has been slashdotted so I can't read whether or not they did)
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the law needs to be altered to change that from "assholes" to "criminals" at the judges discretion.
Re:At first... (Score:4, Insightful)
They are assholes for dragging a woman into court that they know is completely innocent. Period.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried, and they may have had reason to believe she was at least partially culpable. If she knew her boyfriend was driving, there's a case there that she was a party to an act of gross negligence.
I agree entirely with the judge's ruling: the court has to set hard limits to where you can assign blame so as to prevent an inquisition. We don't know if the texts reveal that she knew, also, but it seems unlikely.
But in light of how severe their damages were, I think they were right to bring it before the court, even though it was a long shot.
And they probably also felt morally wronged by her, and it's not at all unreasonable to seek out justice through the system that society has set in place to resolve such disputes. Especially when, you know, you just lost your fucking leg.
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried
Well, actually you can, as much as anyone can "know" anything, anyway. The legal system allows for a very specific process which has specific outcomes based on its rules. You cannot be declared guilty legally without going through that process, even if it otherwise irrefutably known by one or more people that you did, in fact, commit whatever act of which you have been accused.
Granted, I doubt in this particular case the couple actually did know his g
Re: (Score:3)
Re:At first... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems pretty weird to me - had the guy been drunk, he'd certainly got a much stiffer punishment.
However - the guy is sober, and still decides to do something as idiotic as texting while manoeuvring over a ton of steel, and gets fuck all... Kind of pathetic.
This is why they have harsh punishment for drunk driving, it can lead to results like this. So he gets the result without being drunk, and gets less punishment than driving drunk and not hitting anything. Good job justice.
There's a serious disconnect
Re: (Score:2)
It is because MADD is a very powerful lobby. What these people should have done was spend that money on badgering the courts to stiffen penalties instead of trying to hit the Court Lottery.
Re: (Score:2)
so then you will just get sued for failing to keep the car's AV definitions up to date?
That would be Google's job, not yours. And why would the car need AV at all? It's not gonna be running Windows and it will be an embedded system.
Or for rooting your car to get rid of the carrier bloatware (car will still an internet connection, after all... subsidized cars on a two year contract, anyone?) so the turn by turn navigation won't drive you ten miles out of your way in order to pass in front of an olive garden that has a targeted ad pushed to you?
If the system has been perfected, this would not be an issue. There would be no carrier. Why would anyone in their right mind consider relying on internet connection for safety? The car would be completely autonomous with no need for the internet. Maybe a map upgrade once in a while only, which can be done via wifi overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldnt need an antivirus. This is one of the cases where a walled garden provided by manufacturer/google works really well. You can only run apps tested and signed by Google/manufacturer.
I doubt they would target ads this ways, as I most likely will not even look out of the car. I would simply watch a movie, read the daily news, till I reach the destination.