Posted on 05/24/2012 7:47:11 AM PDT by servo1969
Full title - Can you be blamed for texting a driver? Couple who both lost a leg in crash sue student for sending messages to boyfriend, 18, before he hit them with his truck
A couple who each lost a leg after a driver careened his truck into their motorbike is suing the man's girlfriend for texting him while he was behind the wheel.
David and Linda Kubert, both 59, were in Mine Hill, New Jersey when they saw Kyle Best, then 18, looking down at a text message as he swerved towards them.
After the September 2009 crash, police discovered he had exchanged 62 texts with his girlfriend that day, and he admitted he had been looking at his phone moments before he lost control of the car.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
When you text someone, how do you know you are putting someone in danger?
Slavery is not dead in America. Everyone is one judge’s decision away from being a slave to another citizen for life.
There are distractions while driving a car--a bee can enter an open window, a rock can hit and crack a windshield, and a warning light can appear suddenly on the dashboard. All can be distractions, but it is up to the driver alone to maintain control.
Apparently the theory of P’s case is that she knew he was driving when she texted him. I think they have a serious issue with both duty (element 1 of a negligence action) and proximate cause (element 3). My assumption is that boyfriend doesn’t have enough liability insurance to suit the plaintiffs’ attorney.
I guess the *girlfriend* wore the pants in that relationship... at least, the pants with the *deepest pockets*.
But IMO, texting while driving should be illegal, period, end of story.
I tried to do it a few times in the past. It's scary. I'll never do it again.
Pull over and THEN text.
common sense was lost long before the legs were
Stoopit lawsuit and should be dismissed.
Sad outcome though.
I guess the *girlfriend* wore the pants in that relationship... at least, the pants with the *deepest pockets*.
The only reasonable explanation.
I think you’re right.
If she did indeed know he was driving, I think she might be held liable for some very small percentage of blame and damages.
I mean a SMALL percent. Like no more than 10%.
That a ridiculous stretch.../sigh.
That’s why they invented Bluetooth and voice texting. Not only should it be illegal, but make the penalty at least $5,000 to scare people and jail time. No one is going to be concerned about a small fine.
Nah. Texting means you can read it later. Like email.
careless driving is already illegal
Her parents must have money
so now liability extends to something somebody else did.
This is just an insurance fishing expedition.
“”After the September 2009 crash, police discovered he had exchanged 62 texts with his girlfriend that day, and he admitted he had been looking at his phone moments before he lost control of the car.””
How many of those text messages stated that he was driving at the time?
Given there were 62 messages the probability of her contributing to the negligence increases. And if her parents have deep pockets that further increases her being sued.
A scrupulously fair man myself, I demand that both the ditzy girl, her boyfriend, and both sets of parents and their undoubted boyfriends and girlfriends, be shot. The American gene pool needs protection from these people.
If any of them have tattoos, shoot'em again.
62 messages that day.
How many messages in the days before? What was the boyfriend doing while receiving and sending text messages with his girlfriend in the days before the negligence?
It is my observation that kids are addicted to their cell phones and texting. 62 messages on the day of the accident may have been a light day.
Show a pattern of negligent behavior on the part of the boyfriend and girlfriend and she will end up paying part of the judgment.
His GF wouldn't know but he would. If you are doing it while driving you are putting someone in danger. Period.
I always have to ask when I see it....WTF is so important? Put the damned phone away and concentrate on your primary task. Or pull over and make a damned phone call already.
Fricking scum-bag trial lawyers.
So, do we get to sue a billboard company in NJ if we look at it and have an accident?
I hope you're wrong. She is in no way responsible for the details of the boyfriend's reckless behavior, even if she knew he was reckless. I hope the guy driving the truck pays as much as he deserves to be fined, which is a lot, but I don't think she has any more direct responsibility than the phone manufacturer and the wireless service provider.
I do not have a cell phone.
My question is this. Are text messages saved by the cell phone provider?
It is my observation that kids are addicted to their cell phones and texting. 62 messages on the day of the accident may have been a light day.
I just checked, and on a light day since yesterday morning, my girlfriend and I exchanged 37 texts. Sometimes, one message is broken up into several texts. Other times, one might put quick smile into a text. I’ve been known to send “XOXOXO” as six texts!
60 texts in 18 waking hours means that there are about 3 texts per hour, so each text is expected to sit for 20 minutes before a reply, showing how its unreasonable for a texter to assume that a driver will read the incoming text before it’s safe to do so.
It’s absurd to blame the texter, any more than to blame someone who sends me a birthday card if I trip on the way to the mailbox.
Are text messages saved by the cell phone provider?
Who the heck has that much to say, that can't wait?
Geez, some people need to get a life.
when you know they are in the process of driving a car
62 texts- she had to know he was driving
I presume that is why a lawyer took the case
The girl friend SHOULD be held responsible. In some small way. If it is proven that she knew he was driving and she contributed to his reckless and dangerous behavior, then she is an accessory.
Much in the same way a bar is responsible for plying some idiot full of alcohol and then letting him drive home at closing time only to crash into some innocent victim.
“But IMO, texting while driving should be illegal, period, end of story.”
It does not need to be outlawed, instead we just need to enforce the current laws. I advocate that any driver that causes physical injury or property damage should be prosecuted for the corresponding crime, for example vehicular manslaughter. That should be the case for ANY negligant behaviour whild driving.
The problem is that the only time we use these laws is when DUI is also a factor, so now we have a bunch of drivers that think the ONLY dangerous driving is DUI.
The lawsuit against the girlfriend is an outrage. It is the DRIVER’S responsibility to avoid distractions.
She may or may not have known he was driving, but he could have been just as easily distracted by a text from someone who had no idea he was driving. Also, if you text someone while they are driving, you should be able to assume that they won’t read it while driving.
The lawyer’s “electronically present” argument is also a crock. If someone is sitting in the passenger seat, while I am driving and says, “Hey, look at this?” or “Read this?” and I take my eyes off the road to look at it, and an accident results, it is MY fault, not the passenger’s.
It would be different if the passenger created a distraction I could not avoid, by covering my eyes or waving something in front of my face while I was driving, but a text message is nothing like that.
An incoming text message is only a distraction if the driver CHOOSES to break the law and disregard safety to read it.
Ask Kwame Kilpatrick. :-)
I disagree - very strongly. This overly broad concept of liability is a fundamental problem with our civil courts. Direct personal responsibility for reckless or negligent actions is one thing, but even there we go way too far. Even if she had some moral responsibility and morally "should" have held off on texting while he was driving, to hold that as a legal standard is an efficient way to enrich the tort lawyers, but it doesn't help society or any productive person. Similarly, I don't believe a bartender is responsible for the actions of a drunk who leaves while intoxicated and then drives. To attribute legal liability with only an indirect link goes way too far for me, and in my view for a free society. Whatever hypothetical social benefit we gain by making everyone their brother's keeper and holding them accountable in court is more than balanced out by the loss of personal freedom when we give the courts that much power. Your answer is, sadly, how our civil courts work. Mine is how they ought to work. Unfortunately, lawyers have far too much input in writing our laws, so your side is winning.
I hear what you’re saying, but laws have been on the books for centuries that punish accomplishes and accessories to crimes.
And while the GF didn’t drive the get-away car (so to speak), it could be argued that she did knowingly distract him and in some small way was a part of the crime scene.
Everyone should have at least a $million umbrella policy. In one inattentive heart beat you could not only lose everything you own but everything you will ever earn.
Even more so if you’ve got kids.
I have no problem with punishing a genuine accessory or accomplice to a crime. I have a huge problem with punishing someone financially based on a frivolous or trivial link to a reckless or negligent act. I would not prosecute the hardware store owner who sold Trayvon Martin a screwdriver used in a burglary, even if he should have suspected that Trayvon had little interest in home repairs. I would not prosecute the girl in the skimpy outfit who distracted another driver and "caused" an injury accident. Our laws have carried this concept way too far, and decent people need to push back against the frivolous abuse of our courts.
What if he sold him 62 screwdrivers?
Sorry. Don’t answer that. I’m being facetious. I do get your point. We are a sue happy society.
I know about a family who successfully sued the store which sold their son the ammo he used when he committed suicide. I was sorry for their loss, but I failed to see how the store could have possibly known what the son planned to do. Apparently, a jury felt differently.
Sheesh. What State did that happen in? Some blue state, I’m guessing.
No, sadly enough, Utah. As much as Utah is touted as a conservative state, once you start delving into anything in the “family values” area, we have a ton of nanny staters.
Precisely. Where does the liability chain stop, once extended beyond the person who performed or neglected to perform as they should have?
Does the distiller or brewer get sued? The distributor? The farmer who grew the grain? The person who sold the seed, the tractor, the fertilizer?
The extended blame game is a creation of tort lawyers in search of a deeper pocket and a higher fee. (Just like the tobacco lawsuits, where the selfsame governments which refused to cut their income stream by banning tobacco, profited from suing the companies they taxed who manufactured and marketed a legal product they forced no one to use.)
The tobacco lawsuit especially disgusted me. A huge share of the money went to lawyers just like John Edwards, and the rest goes to government spending - an indirect regressive tax on the most vulnerable advertised as a victory for the people, but politicians don't have to take the blame for raising taxes.
> careless driving is already illegal > It does not need to be outlawed, instead we just need to enforce the current laws....the only time we use these laws is when DUI is also a factor...
Alcohol, per se, does not cause accidents. Intoxication, per se, does not cause accidents. Texting, per se, does not cause accidents. For that matter, engaging in an argument or phoning or having sex while driving do not cause accidents either, in and of themselves.
What causes accidents is lack of attention to driving, distraction away from what is ahead of or around your vehicle, resulting in lack of control of your vehicle.
My point is that _IF_ we prosecute DWI and DUI for alcohol or other drugs, we should also do so for other activities that cause similar dangerous levels of distraction.
It is well known and acknowledged that texting typically slows reaction and response times by MANY SECONDS where being drunk does so for mere TENTHS of a second -- yet that smaller level is considered enough to lock someone up for years and take away their license and livelihood.
I'm arguing for CONSISTENCY in the law.
I know.... losing proposition....
I like the way you think. I like it a lot.
I disagree. Texting is an asynchronous form of communication, like email. The recipient can read and answer at his convenience and when he is safely able to focus on the message. The sender is not responsible for the timing of the recipient's response.
“I’m arguing for CONSISTENCY in the law.”
On that we agree. I advocate that consistency be through the utilization of current laws to bring the hammer down on any driver that causes physical harm to persons or property damage. The existing laws already provide that avenue, for example we have vehicular manslaughter. It is not used consistently and it should be.
That said, I believe where we differ is that you are advocating adding to the current laws, where I would subtract from them to get that consistency. I would not have “special” laws for prosecuting those that cause harm or damage, instead I would eliminate those laws and better utilize the law to cover all situations where the driver causes that harm or damage.
To be more succinct, as an example, I would eliminate DUI laws, while at the same time I would bring the hammer down on anyone that causes the death of another person. Any driver that is at fault, whether by being drunk or by being distracted should spend many years in prison.
I say that as a person that did have a friend killed by a texter: http://www.mbkmemorial.org/
If I am misunderstanding your position, then I offer my apologies....
Actually, we agree, and you have done me a good service by pointing out that I was not following my own principles. If you look at my FR Profile page you'll find the great quote from Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative", which I take as a guiding light towards better, smaller government:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests', I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Unfortunately, in the case of DWI/DUI, there is this huge public sentiment in favor of punishing careless drunk drivers not just for their carelessness, but for their inebriation as well. It goes so far that a CAREFUL drunk driver who causes no harm is still just as liable to lose their license. I have no hope that those laws will ever be eliminated, so I was taking the fallback position that "if we're going to do A we should also do B".
You are quite right to correct me, and I thank you.
Also, I'm very sorry about your friend. That's a great memorial site.
Best FRegards, Dayglored
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.