Skip to comments.Couple who both lost a leg in crash sue student for sending messages to boyfriend (shortened title)
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 ...
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.