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.
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.)