NJ Court: Sending a Text Message To a Driver Could Make You Liable For Crash 628
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.'"
Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the point of text messages... (Score:5, Insightful)
Information for the hard of thinking judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
April 1st (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Missing the point of text messages... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Realistically... (Score:5, Insightful)
World is full of stupid people.
Unfortunately, many of them get to make laws.
Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Simple Math (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
They could just as easily read the text later. It's asynchronous communication.
Re:Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding. That's just irresponsible. But nope, can't say "fuck" on the radio because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Re:Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Idiocracy (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)