Judges: Text sender can be held civilly liable if driver crashes

[alp227]

A person who texts a driver who reads the message and causes an accident while distracted can be held civilly liable to injured parties under limited, special circumstances, a state appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.

Ruling in a Morris County-based case that attracted nationwide attention, the panel from the Appellate Division of Superior Court stressed that drivers are obligated to obey traffic laws and not transmit or read text messages while driving. But they found that the sender of a text that distracted the driver also could be held civilly responsible in the event of a crash if the sender in a remote location “knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted.”

The novel issue of imposing a duty of care and a potential cause of action against a texter was raised by attorney Stephen “Skippy” Weinstein, whose clients Linda and David Kubert both lost their left legs when their motorcycle was hit on Sept. 21, 2009, by a teenager who got distracted while texting and driving in Mine Hill.

The Kuberts settled their lawsuit against driver Kyle Best, then 19, of Wharton, but sued the then-17-year-old Shannon Colonna of Rockaway, who was exchanging texts with Best as he drove.

full: http://archive.is/BGuKZ (archived from the original: http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20130828/NJNEWS/308270024)

Also has been covered in the Star-Ledger "Court clears teen in texting case, but says texters have 'special responsibility' for knowingly distracting drivers"; Emily Bazelon/Slate.com "Don’t Text to a Driver!"

[Xipe Totec]

1. That's quite a stretch, Skippy. nt

[nashville_brook]

3. damn skippy that's a stretch

[DreamGypsy]

2. It can wait.

http://www.itcanwait.com/

[OldTime]

4. Huh?

I guess I don't understand this one?? How am I as the sender expected to know if the person I am texting is driving at that moment?

[DreamGypsy]

5. Ask.

R U Driving?

IT CAN WAIT.

[markpkessinger]

6. But that's not the point of this ruling . . .

Yes, we all know that someone who is driving can and should wait until he or she is not driving before sending a text message. But that's not what this ruling is about. This ruling isn't about holding those who text while driving accountable. This ruling is about holding those who send texts TO people who are driving open to civil liability in the event the driver chooses to respond and crashes as a result. In other words, I could be sitting snugly in my bed and decide to send a text message to a friend who happens to be driving, but I have no way of knowing that. This friend (idiot that he is) decides to respond and, while trying to do so, crashes. According to this ruling, I, sitting snugly in my bed, could be held civilly liable for damages resulting from a crash caused by my idiot friend's decision to respond while he was driving.

This is an insane ruling, and I doubt it will hold up on appeal.

[jberryhill]

7. But the ruling doesn't say what you just said

If you did not know the person was driving, the ruling does not apply.

Consider:

"Hey where are you?"

"I'm driving to school."

"Can you stop by and pick me up?"

And then the driver crashes.

Are you seriously going to say, in that situation, that you didn't (a) know the person was driving and (b) intended for them to read it while they were driving?

Re-read the OP. Notice where it says something about having a reason to know the person was driving. Other examples would include times when you know the person was commuting.

It is not a rational response to a ruling which specifically singles out and is limited to circumstances in which it can be shown you knew or had reason to know the recipient was driving by saying "I had no way of knowing". That is a threshold fact which, if shown, is already taken as a given to being potentially liable.

You appear to have missed the point of the ruling.

[npk]

53. It only applies if you had reason to believe the person was driving.

If in good faith the person had no way of knowing that the person they were sending the text to was driving, then they would not be held liable. On the other hand if the person tells their friend that they are driving to the store, and five minutes later the friend texts the other for some milk from the store, then that would be case where the person knew that the other person would be driving and they could be held liable.

I still think this law is a bad idea though, but I can see why they are trying to push such a measure. I do believe that most of the texts that are sent to people behind the wheel, the person sending the text does know that the person is driving, and they should share some of the civil liability in the event of a crash that injures or kills people.

[Niceguy1]

76. kind of hard to prove or even defend yourself

From this law.... until they can see intonour heads I say tjat is is a bad idea

[GeorgeGist]

11. Hilarious.

[kestrel91316]

8. That won't pass constitutional muster. It's impossible for

anyone sending a text to know what the recipient is doing at any particular time.

[jberryhill]

9. That's simply not true

"Hey, if you are on your way to school, could you pick me up?"

That text is premised on being received if in fact the person is driving.

Here's another one. I call you at work. They tell me you just left to go home a few minutes ago. I know you drove to work, so I send you a text saying:

"Hey, stop at the store and pick up some milk"

Why do you claim either of those things is "impossible"?

The ruling is limited to situations in which the sender does, in fact, know the person to be driving.

[Lurker Deluxe]

29. Craziness

"Hey, if you are on your way to school, could you pick me up?"

That text is premised on being received if in fact the person is on their way to school, which could be many things ... one of them being driving. They could be getting gas, a cup of coffee, or talking to a sibling at a buss stop.

The driver is the one has to be responsible for the action. If your little text bell goes off you can look at the screen when at a stop sign, or sitting at a red light, or pull over to the side, or ignore it. The driver makes the decision to let the distraction happen. That is the whole point of texting, read at your convenience not immediately.

What if I get an e-mail from a customer who is in Italy?? Is it their responsibility to know when I may or may not be in my car? No, it's my responsibility to know how to not let the distraction happen when I am driving.

[jberryhill]

32. Still not getting the point

"What if I get an e-mail from a customer who is in Italy?? Is it their responsibility to know when I may or may not be in my car?"

No, it is not their responsibility to know you are driving a car.

This decision doesn't make it anyone's responsibility to know you are driving a car.

This decision says IF YOU KNOW THEY ARE DRIVING AND YOU EXPECT THEM TO READ IT WHEN THEY ARE, then you are as responsible for KNOWINGLY distracting a driver as anyone else would be.

I swear, people can't read.

[Stargazer09]

80. We get the point

However, it's not a good one.

No matter what, the DRIVER IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for his/her actions. If the driver is stupid enough to keep his/her text notification vibrations or noises on while driving, that is absolutely NOT THE FAULT OF THE PERSON SENDING THE TEXT.

[pipi_k]

85. that's still not the point

as I wrote below, it's not the individual text.

It's the matter of a running texting conversation.

Some people have no self control and can't resist reading and replying to multiple texts while they're driving.

If you send someone one text message, that's not the problem.

The problem is when someone keeps on texting back and forth with a driver, KNOWING that person is driving. If you suspect the person can't resist carrying on a text conversation, even while driving, back off and continue the conversation some other time.

[Logical]

71. Let me explain this slowly to you.....

The person receiving the text is in FULL CONTROL. They CHOOSE to read it or not.

So you think a billboard that distracts a driver, like a hot girl or guy, can also be sued for an accident?

How about a bumper sticker?

Need 100 more examples?

You really have not thought this through much.

[pipi_k]

84. This isn't about

one text message.

It's about a running text conversation.


If you send a text to someone you know is driving and it doesn't get a reply, then that's a different story.


Running text conversations, OTOH, should not be happening while someone is driving.

And if a driver can't exercise self control, then it's up to the person on the other end to back off and wait until the person isn't driving to continue. If he doesn't, he's just as much at fault.

[krispos42]

79. Counterpoint:

If it okay for somebody that does not know a person is driving to send messages for the driver to read when he or she can safely do so, why is is NOT okay for somebody who does know the person is driving to do the exact same thing?

If the operating presumption is that the driver CAN and WILL only check text messages when it is safe and legal to do so, what is the problem with putting messages in his or her reading queue?


I mean, think about it... if I send a message to a person that I reasonably know to be having sex, and that message causes an accidental pregnancy by distracting one or both of the people having sex... am I liable for child support?

Think about it. I send a message. My buddy rolls over to check it, inducing an unnoticed condom failure. Oops. Some spermies just leaked out that would have been contained if I hadn't interrupted him.

Do I owe child support? What if I knock on a person's door while they're screwing and the same thing happens? I mean, I can hear the moans and groans, so I KNOW what they're doing, right?

[pipi_k]

37. That's not what it means...

As has already been pointed out above, if you text someone asking what he's doing and he says he's driving to work, you text back OK, will text you later.

If, however, you keep up a running text conversation with the person even though he's said he is driving, then you are responsible for knowing.

[LanternWaste]

65. My girlfriend left ten minutes ago to get groceries at a store 20 minutes away

My girlfriend left ten minutes ago to get groceries at a store 20 minutes away. If I text her, I'd know she's currently driving...

Doesn't take an idiot.

[flvegan]

10. In other news: STOP FUCKING TEXTING WHILE DRIVING

And for that matter, stop doing everything else except, well, fucking driving!

You idiots, do I have to be the one to tell you that you just aren't that important? That your next Twitter or Facebook post will just be okay if you wait? Or your next e-mail, or your Facetime cam thing.

FUCKING SHUT UP AND DRIVE!

It would be a little different if you had some talent, some ability behind the wheel. You don't. Sorry.

It would be a little different if you drove a superior car, that did things for you...because you're too stupid. You don't.

Eyes front, to the side and to the back. Out the glass. Pay attention.

Stop being stupid. I know, it's a reach but you can do it. I believe.

[malaise]

12. +1,000 n/t

[reformist2]

24. I've personally had a couple of scares from texter/drivers who weren't looking at the road!

[HappyMe]

35. Well said.

I'm sick to death of some asshat blathering on the phone or texting and coming close to mangling me.

[B Calm]

13. They'll just have to outlaw driving.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Self navigating vehicles will happen.

Robots don't get bored.

[B Calm]

73. I'm still waiting for solar powered flying cars. If they

hadn't stolen the election from Al Gore, who knows. . .

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Those are very cool, but more or less impossible.

Self navigating vehicles already exist, are highly practical, and solve real problems.

[sendero]

14. And people wonder why..

... respect for our legal system is at an all time low.

Plain idiocy.

[jberryhill]

15. IMHO, reading comprehension is at an all time low

I don't see why a person who KNOWS the other person is driving is not jointly responsible.

Just about everyone in this thread has demonstrated an inability to read and understand these words:


if the sender in a remote location “knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted.”

So, I guess everyone wouldn't care if someone in the backseat decided to put their hands over the driver's eyes either.

[sendero]

16. I read and my reading comprehension is fine..

... your logical skills might not be however.

A driver is free to STOP DRIVING if need be, to read a text. No one if FORCING a driver to read a text. It's IDIOCY and there is a reason no judge has come up with this bullshit until now.

[jberryhill]

17. "there is a reason no judge has come up with this bullshit until now"

Because no judge has seen a case where the question was raised.

Someone in the back seat of a car, who is distracting the driver, can be held liable. I don't see a distinction in a situation where someone who is intentionally distracting a driver whom they know to be driving.

Do you know the facts of the case in question?

[kcr]

18. How do you feel about holding bars responsible for serving alcohol to drunks?

No one is forcing them to drink and drive either. In both cases, they are knowingly contributing to a dangerous situation. They are being held culpable. If the bartender cuts the drunk off, if the texting partner knows the person is driving and stops, they both put a stop to their contribution to their contribution to negligence, and likely stop it from occurring in the first place. It's one thing not to agree, but to call it IDIOCY? That's a bit extreme. Duty of care is nothing new in the law. The judge didn't pull this out of of thin air.

[KittyWampus]

19. This seems akin to holding bartenders/bars responsible for serving obviously inebriated drinkers

even more alcohol.

Or allowing someone who has been drinking at your house to drive home.

[pipi_k]

50. Yes...

a driver is always free to pull over to a safe place from which to text.

I don't know many people who will do that, though.

So if someone KNOWS a person is being irresponsible and texting while driving, it's up to the first person to not enable the person to do something dangerous. IOW, unless the driver specifically texts back that he will pull over, you don't keep texting back and forth.

It's kind of the same as continuing to give alcohol to someone who is clearly intoxicated. Someone has to be the adult/responsible party.

[Bake]

21. Because the DRIVER doesn't have to respond.

The DRIVER is the responsible party. The DRIVER.

That's why.

But in the Nanny State, we're all responsible, apparently.

Bake

[jberryhill]

23. The point goes to intent

Quite obviously, if the driver doesn't respond, then an accident doesn't happen, and the question is moot.

In circumstances where the sender KNEW the person was driving and INTENDED that the driver respond while doing so, I don't see how that differs from any other circumstance in which someone intentionally distracts a driver.

Do you believe that people who intentional distract a driver are, in all permutations of that simple intent, immune from liability for distracting the driver?

[former9thward]

43. How do you know what their intent was?

Did they text, " I know you are driving but I don't care I want a response this instant!"

[jberryhill]

46. Sigh...

What their intent was is a fact question, which is going to depend on the evidence in any given situation.

I gave several examples already in this thread.

Whether there is some question of evidence or proof has NADA to do with whether this rule makes sense:

"If you intend to distract a driver, and an accident results, you can be held liable".

There are a ZILLION legal rules that revolve around intent. Intent is determined on evidence in courtrooms every day.

[pipi_k]

54. Person A

texts Person B, who does not respond that he is driving. The two have a text conversation. An accident happens. If Person A did not reasonably know that Person B was driving, he's not responsible.

Alternately, if Person B texts back that he's driving and Person A keeps up a text conversation knowing that Person B will likely reply even though he's driving, and an accident happens, Person A may also be held responsible.

Let's put it another way, though...

let's say that the person driving is your family member who is unable/unwilling to pull over to a safe place to conduct a textfest. He keeps on texting with the other person. Is it going to be entirely your family member's fault?

Or will you want to put some of the blame on the other person who KNEW your family member was driving but continued to engage him or her in a text conversation anyway?

[former9thward]

56. Just another attempt to deflect responsibility.

Driving is legal. Driving while distracted is illegal. In some states/cities driving while texting is illegal whether you are distracted or not. It is up to the to the driver, and the driver alone, to decide to look at a text, answer a text, take a phone call, put in another cd, drink coffee, put on make up or eat while driving. All of these things can cause distractions while driving. It is the driver's responsibility -- not a third party -- to drive properly.

Should we hold McDonald's responsible if someone in the drive through later gets in an accident because he was driving while looking in his bag for his fries?

[kcr]

58. Other things cause distracted driving. But we don't water down drunk driving laws.

And bars have indeed been held liable. Texting is also particularly dangerous in the same way drunk driving is. Pointing out other ways that can distract a driver doesn't change that.

[former9thward]

60. Bars are held liable because serving someone drunk is illegal.

It is a law not something some judge said somewhere. It is illegal to be drunk in public whether you are driving or not. So that is why the law has made bars liable because they are serving someone who is already in an illegal state. No one besides the driver is responsible for using a phone in any way while driving.

[kcr]

62. No, I'm talking about after an accident.

Bars have been held liable for the actual damages incurred by the drunk after the fact. It has nothing to do with the fact that serving drunks is illegal. People are held liable for acts that aren't in and of themselves illegal all the time.

[former9thward]

63. No you have the law wrong.

In those cases bars are only held liable when it is proved the patron was obviously drunk and the bar kept serving them. If a person was acting normally a bar will not be held liable if later there is an accident.

[kcr]

64. I'm sorry

But if you think you can't be held liable for an action because a specific law wasn't passed saying that action is illegal, you are mistaken.

[pipi_k]

59. It's not the same

It's pretty clear to most of us that people...teenagers especially...just cannot resist the addictive lure of the text message.

So if I know that someone is likely to keep texting back and forth while driving because s/he cannot control him/her self, then it's my responsibility to NOT enable that person to continue doing something that could maim or kill the driver or some other innocent person.

Again, an analogy...

Someone you know is trying to quit drinking. Yes, it's that person's choice and responsibility to stay away from the booze, but if you, knowing the person can't control him or herself, offer the person a drink, then you would be just as responsible for enabling him to start up again.

[former9thward]

61. Your analogy fails.

1) if someone wants to drink there is a million different ways to get alcohol in this country -- not just a friend. 2) If you offer someone a drink and they lose their job as a result, they aren't going to be able to sue you because of it. 3) even if you refuse to text that does not stop him from texting with others ---especially since teens "just cannot resist the addictive lure of the text message." You do not control the situation.

[pipi_k]

83. Point by point

1) if someone wants to drink there is a million different ways to get alcohol in this country -- not just a friend.

Just because there are a hundred ways for a person to get alcohol in this country, that doesn't mean YOU have to be the one to give it to him.

2) If you offer someone a drink and they lose their job as a result, they aren't going to be able to sue you because of it.

The texting thing isn't about whether or not a person can sue someone else for texting him while driving. It's about whether or not a person who knows someone is driving and keeps up a running textfest with him can be held civilly liable without someone actually suing him. Two different things.

3) even if you refuse to text that does not stop him from texting with others ---especially since teens "just cannot resist the addictive lure of the text message." You do not control the situation.

Whether or not the person chooses to text with someone else, that's none of your concern.

What you want to do is avoid being held civilly liable yourself for enabling someone else to have an accident.

The only situation you have control over is your own.

You can choose to back off texting with someone you know is driving. Or you can continue and, if the person has an accident, killing himself or someone else, live the rest of your life wishing you hadn't continued to text with someone you suspected might not be able to control his urge to read and reply to multiple texts.

If I knew someone was driving and continued to text back and forth with him and he had an accident which maimed or killed people, I would feel guilty the rest of my life.

[fishwax]

68. knows not only that the other is driving, but also that they *will read it while driving*

It's pretty narrowly conceived, as you've pointed out throughout the thread. One can still send a text to a friend one knows is driving, because the assumption is that recipients will behave responsibly and wait until it is safe to look at the text.

For instance, to address a few examples in this thread, one could text someone for a ride, knowing the recipient was already on the way to work, because the person frequently stops on the way to work (say, for coffee or to pick up another) and will likely read the text then. Similarly, if you know your partner is driving to the store, you can text to them with the assumption that they will read the text when they get to the store.

“The sender should be able to assume that the recipient will read a text message only when it is safe and legal to do so, that is, when not operating a vehicle. However, if the sender knows that the recipient is both driving and will read the text immediately, then the sender has taken a foreseeable risk in sending a text at that time. The sender has knowingly engaged in distracting conduct, and it is not unfair also to hold the sender responsible for the distraction,” the appeals court wrote.

[kcr]

77. Yep, and I think that point is being missed and why people are so outraged.

The fear is they can suddenly be hit with this liability through no fault of their own. But it's too narrowly defined for that.

[Logical]

69. LOL, yes, because hands over the eyes are the same. You are clueless. n-t

S

[Supersedeas]

20. Plaintiff's attorneys looking for deep pockets find none and now just look for any pockets at all

[Bake]

22. Of course they do.

And if the Court makes that the rule of the game, I don't blame the plaintiff's atty. If you want to BLAME someone, blame the idiots on the court.

Bake

[jberryhill]

27. Do you agree or disagree with the following:

Under the following conditions:

1. I know someone is driving.
2. I intend to distract the driver.
3. I succeed in distracting the driver.
4. An accident results and person X is injured.

Do you agree or disagree that I should bear no liability to person X?

[Bake]

30. The old Palsgraf rule of reasonable foreseeability.

The driver, however, is an interceding cause. The driver doesn't have to pick up the phone. If he/she does, then he/she is an idiot.

Bake, Esq.

[jberryhill]

34. Let's talk about reasonable foreseeability

You don't seem to understand the difference between "foreseeability" and ACTUAL INTENT.

If you INTEND to distract a driver, then it's not a question of "foreseeability".

This ruling doesn't relate to someone who does not KNOW the person is driving and does not INTEND to distract the driver.

It has nothing to do with foreseeability when someone INTENDS and SUCCEEDS IN THAT INTENT to distract the driver.

[Bake]

41. Of course I understand it.

The court ruling applies in negligence cases, so the harm has to be reasonably foresseable.

In your scenario, the driver still has the option of turning off his/her phone or ignoring it. So there's still an interceding cause, although I suspect that a court would find the non-driver liable under your precise circumstances. I don't necessarily agree with that result, but I can see it happening.

Bake, Esq.

[jberryhill]

45. I still don't get your point

"In your scenario, the driver still has the option of turning off his/her phone or ignoring it."

Well, then my intent was unsuccessful.

I'm a little surprised.

Look - if I shoot an arrow into a crowd hoping to hit someone, and I fail to hit someone and nobody notices, I am not civilly liable to anyone for jack squat.

The only time I am going to be civilly liable for shooting an arrow into a crowd with the intent to hit someone is if I actually hit someone or at least scare the bejeezus out of someone.

The question is - if (a) I know someone is driving, and (b) I expect they will read a text I send to them - then my intent is that they read the text I send them while they are driving. Think about that for a minute. Just let it sink in. What you are saying is that even if (a) I KNOW they are driving, and (b) I INTEND for them to read the text while they are driving, then I am not responsible for the INTENDED consequence of my actions.

It's a larger category than simply texting. I seriously can't believe that anyone who would normally agree with the proposition:

"If you intend to distract a driver, and an accident results, then you can be held liable"

would somehow draw a box around any specific facts constituting the same situation and say, "Oh, unless you are distracting them by some particular method".

[LanternWaste]

67. Nor does the caller have to text a person they are aware is driving. If he/she does the he/she is an

"he driver doesn't have to pick up the phone. If he/she does, then he/she is an idiot..."

Nor does the caller have to text a person they are aware is driving a motor vehicle. If he/she does then he/she is an idiot...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other (insert distinction without a relevant difference here... just don't text it to someone on the road)

[sendero]

31. No because it is SOLELY..

.. up to the driver whether or not he wants to deal with the text WHILE HE IS DRIVING.

He could WAIT FOR A RED LIGHT. He could PULL OVER. He could TURN OFF HIS PHONE BEFORE TAKING THE WHEEL.

By your logic, a woman walking on the sidewalk with a shapely ass and tight pants could be liable.

I hope you are not a lawyer.

[jberryhill]

33. Is that woman INTENDING to distract a driver, no

Again, you do not seem to grasp the notion of intent, and yes, I am a lawyer.

It's okay to INTEND to distract a driver is it?

[Logical]

70. LOL, you crack me up! n-t

[DevonRex]

28. Read that ruling very carefully. It says "will VIEW" the text while driving.

It doesn't say "will receive" the text while driving. That requires action on the part of the driver. It also requires that the sender has reason to know that the person s/he is texting either normally texts while driving or is expecting a text from him/her during that particular drive and normally reads texts while driving.

[jberryhill]

36. No, it's perfectly okay to intend to distract a driver

Several of the posters here cannot figure out what "intent" means.

But I've been through this in real life.

I have an assistant who I know is often tempted to text and drive. When she's coming in late, she'll send me a text to the effect of "I'm on my way, but there is a lot of traffic on I-95".

When I get that text, do I respond to her?

Hell no. I know if I text her in response to that, that (a) she is driving, and (b) will probably read it.

It's really just common sense applied to very specific circumstances which would have to be proven on the facts.

But from the "how would the sender know" responses in this thread, it is pretty clear that people can't reason from the basis of a premise taken as given in application of a rule. The ruling says "IF" the sender knows the person is driving and "WILL" more likely than not view it while driving, then it falls into any other case of intentionally distracting a driver. Some cannot bring themselves to understand that.

Instead, they go argue with the "IF" premise, and think they are making a relevant point.

[DevonRex]

40. I know. Seems to me that if you know you're texting a person who's

driving AND you know that the person normally reads texts while s/he is driving (i.e. can't ignore the beep until s/he gets home) OR perhaps the 2 of you prearranged to text while s/he was driving (perhaps directions) then there's some degree of liability. It would be interesting to see how it would be divided.

[MindPilot]

42. So if I crash while I'm reading a billboard, can I sue Clear Channel?

The billboard is right there alongside the highway with the obvious intent of distracting drivers.

[jberryhill]

47. That's a great question

It's probably why there are a lot of rules about billboards.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

49. Sure. If you can show a reasonable person would be more distracted by that billboard...

.. than any other roadside distraction. Yes.

[reformist2]

25. Actually, this could be a good thing, if it leads to workers' right not to be bothered off the clock

Too many employers these days expect workers to be connected 24/7 - a little pushback is good.

[Jenoch]

26. If it can be proven that the person sending texts to a person driving a car,

then the sender does, in my opinion, share some of the responsibility for the liability if the driver causes an accident with injuries.

If there is any question at all as to whether the text knew the recipient was driving, then the responsibility/liability does not apply.

Here is my bias on the issue...there is too much texting going on.

[MindPilot]

38. By that logic my employer should be able to sue Skinner

Because clearly it is his fault that I'm posting on DU during work hours.

[Vashta Nerada]

39. Wait...what?

It should 100% be the driver's fault if she/he crashed while reading a text. The text sender should never be at fault. All drivers know they're not supposed to be on their phone while driving.

What if a driver got distracted while checking out a woman jogging down the road and crashed, injuring someone? Should that female jogger be held responsible?

WTF is this country coming to?

[NYC Liberal]

44. Only if you explicitly knew they were driving

If that jogger was intentionally trying to get the driver's attention and distract them then yes they should be held partly responsible.

There are similar laws with serving obviously intoxicated customers at a bar regarding the liability of the server.

[jberryhill]

48. People who intentionally distract drivers are held liable all of the time

It's amazing that people think texting makes it "different".

[Skittles]

51. bottom line: do not text while driving

and do not text people you KNOW are driving

[postulater]

52. An hour ago my daughter texted me that an acquaintance of hers

was killed Wednesday when she (the acquaintance) drove under a parked semi at 60 mph while texting.

The car went under the truck up to the back seat.

What a waste. So sad.

[Liberal_in_LA]

87. omg.

[HooptieWagon]

55. Is a radio station responsible....

...if a driver crashes as a result of adjusting the dial?

A ridiculus ruling. The driver is responsible.

[pipi_k]

57. A radio station

isn't engaging in a personal one-on-one give and take conversation with its listeners, who could be doing any one of a hundred different activities while they're listening.

Not the same at all.

[Logical]

72. A guy holding a "going out of business" sign waving at your car is trying to distract you......

It is up to the DRIVER to ignore the distraction. Just like billboards, bumper stickers. Etc.

The driver is 100% in control of the decision to read the text or ignore it.

this judge is an idiot.

And so many agree with him.

[B Calm]

74. I agree with you!!

[kcr]

75. If the going out of business sing waver actually caused enough of a distraction to cause a wreck

they could conceivably be held liable. The judge is not an idiot.

[pipi_k]

81. One more time...

it's not whatever the "distraction" is.

It's whether or not the person driving is actively participating in the distraction.


Like there's a difference between having a load of screeching kids in the back seat and ignoring them.

or

Having a load of screeching kids in the backseat and the driver is turning around every few seconds to yell at them to shut up.


A driver can be distracted by a hundred things on the road and sidewalks.

But he's not actively participating in a text conversation with someone on the other end who may or may not know he's driving.

If you know someone is driving and you keep texting him, you bear some of the blame as well.

This is what I always worry about when I text a family member. Is this person driving? Will this person feel compelled to look at his or her cell phone if I text? That's why I ask if someone is busy before getting into a textfest if I have reason to think the person might not be home.

I would not want to think that my actions had contributed to this person having an accident.

That's how I think, anyway.

Some people might not care.

[Logical]

82. One more time. Slowly....

The driver had TOTAL CONTROL over if he wanted to read the text or not. He had TOTAL CONTROL over if he chose to ignore his responsibility. No one else had that control.

Drivers have 100s of distractions every time they drive. We do not blame any of those.

I wish I was on the jury. It would be a quick verdict.

[kcr]

86. "we do not blame any of those"

Says you. It is your opinion that drivers have total control and that there is no other way another person can be held liable if an accident happens.