Texting a Driver Could Get You in Trouble [ Idiot Judged in Christie's New Jersey]

Hispanic Business.com ^ | 8/28/13

[SoFloFreeper]

New Jersey drivers face fines for texting while driving and prison time when they cause death or injury.

Now, a state appellate court has decided it's not just drivers who can wind up in trouble for texting: Message senders can also be held responsible in civil cases, if they know the recipient is driving and likely to read the text while behind the wheel.

In an opinion published Tuesday, the appellate court agreed with a Morris County Superior Court judge's decision to dismiss a claim against a 17-year-old girl who texted 18-year-old Kyle Best before his pickup crossed the center line of a road and struck a husband and wife on their motorcycle.

[SoFloFreeper]

So SENDING a text to a driver can make you liable, according to some black robed idjits in Jersey....

So can I sue morons who voted for Obama?

[cripplecreek]

That’s quite a stretch. I get texts while driving but never read them till I stop. So what happens if I read a text and then pull out into traffic and immediately get in an accident?

[albie]

Why not the same for a cell phone call? What about waving to your friend as he drives by? He’d have to take one hand off the wheel. Are drive thru restaurants liable if you have an accident while eating?

This is the same mentality as the bar tender being responsible for serving too much.

[Da Coyote]

I’m beginning to think that just as politics is there for people without the intellectual ability to do useful work, judgeships are there for those lawyers who are unable to do useful law. (Liberal judges, at least.)

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

So now you have to know when someone is driving or not? The NSA app for that isn’t out yet.

[cuban leaf]

Pretty funny stuff. If I had not given up all hope that this system is not going to crash and burn, this story would create an emotional response.

Now, I just think it’s funny.

[jughandle]

Everybody is liable for everything here in NJ. Except the “protected” classes. Funny, though illegal, at least 1/4 of the drivers on the road are on the phone.

[Red in Blue PA]

Reminds me of the inner city “youths” who shoot up the cities. THEY are never responsible for stealing the gun, loading it, and pulling the trigger, the gun maker is.

Same theory here.

Utter insanity.

[COBOL2Java]

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
- Atlas Shrugged

[PATRIOT1876]

*Message senders can also be held responsible in civil cases, if they know the recipient is driving and likely to read the text while behind the wheel.*

How stupid!
The responsibility is with the driver.

[RedMDer]

Only Three Days Until September!! Less than $5.9k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! We can do this! Please Donate today!

[Vaquero]

when I text....I try to think of where the recipient is. If I think they are in a car I do not text. reading texts and texting is WAY too dangerous.

but of course there is no way to know where the recipient is. and this Judge is just a WAD.

[wildbill]

I wonder if a chip couldn’t be in every smart phone that would attach a notice to any text message that the sender wasn’t driving.

It wouldn’t be a panacea, but if the driver got into a serious accident, the time stamped message could be used as evidence of gross negligence on the part of the idiot that was driving while texting.

[MD Expat in PA]

when I text....I try to think of where the recipient is. If I think they are in a car I do not text. reading texts and texting is WAY too dangerous. but of course there is no way to know where the recipient is. and this Judge is just a WAD.

Same here. I do not text or use my cell phone at all while driving – I keep it in my purse or turned off if I am charging it. It is very dangerous, some say even more dangerous to some extent than driving while “moderately” drunk. (The reasoning being that even an impaired driver is paying or probably trying to pay attention to the road while someone looking at the cell phone and reading or writing texts (or posting to FaceBook, Twittering, surfing the web, etc.), is not paying any attention at all during those times – an impaired driver will have a slower reaction response but will still have a reaction response, where as if you have your face buried in a cell phone, your reaction time is zero).

But if you read the entire article, what the court did in this ruling was to uphold the dismissal of the lawsuit filed against the 17 year old who was texting the 18 year old driver who caused the injury accident, citing that there wasn’t enough evidence that she had culpability for the accident.

“While the appellate court found that the Kuberts -- who also sued the girl after learning that she and Best had exchanged 62 texts the day of the crash -- didn't present enough evidence for the claim, it said other third-party texters could be held liable in accidents, depending on what they knew about the driver receiving the messages.

"We do not hold that someone who texts to a person driving is liable for that person's negligent actions," the opinion said.

But "when a texter knows or has special reason to know that the intended recipient is driving and is likely to read the text message while driving," the opinion said, "the texter has a duty to users of the public roads to refrain from sending the driver a text at that time."

The way I read this is “if” the sender of the text knows full well that the recipient is behind the wheel and responding to the sender by texting back while driving, when it is known by the sender that the recipient is driving, i.e. has “special reason to know”; then the sender could also be held culpable. I might be somewhat analogous to being a passenger in a car driven by someone who is drinking behind the wheel and passing them even more alcohol to drink.

If you have about 35 minutes and especially if you think texting while driving is no big deal or have teenagers with cars and smart phones, watch this.

From One Second To The Next