If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Car Connection)   If you send a text to a driver, can you go to jail if he crashes?   (thecarconnection.com) divider line 38
    More: Interesting, Alan Dershowitz, 38th state, Daily Record, careless driving, The Weinstein Company, bus drivers  
•       •       •

1687 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 May 2012 at 11:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



38 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-05-16 06:23:04 AM
No one is being forced to answer the phone.
 
2012-05-16 06:43:47 AM
No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.
 
2012-05-16 07:39:53 AM
Just like if you call or page the driver.

Technically, though, nothing is stopping you from driving to the jail should that occur, so the answer is yes
 
2012-05-16 07:51:13 AM
FTA: "... a passenger can occasionally be held responsible for a collision if that passenger encourages the driver to do unsafe or illegal things. Weinstein argues that Colonna was "electronically present" at the time of the collision"

For the life of me, I don't understand why the legal profession has such an image problem.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-16 08:30:06 AM
No, you can't go to jail. Worse. Lawyers will take everything you will ever earn for the rest of your life because a jury thinks you have money and might be .001% responsible for somebody's injuries.
 
2012-05-16 08:33:07 AM

MarshHawk: For the life of me, I don't understand why the legal profession has such an image problem.

The Kuberts suffered some grisly injuries, including amputations.


I expect the driver was grossly underinsured relative to the injuries sustained, and the attorney is desperately looking for any remotely colorable argument to involve the other party's homeowner's or other insurance policy. He's not doing it for shiats & gigs.
 
2012-05-16 08:48:19 AM
From the video, it seems that the lawyer is claiming the texter knew the recipient was driving at the time she texted him. Sure, the driver has a responsibility to not answer the phone, but I don't have a problem with saying the texter has a responsibility to not ask the driver to answer the phone. Every four-year old who's ever goaded a friend into eating a handful of dirt knows that when the dirt-eater throws up, they're both to blame for the mess. The buck doesn't stop at the first dummy in the line.
 
2012-05-16 10:48:19 AM
Maybe, if you're one of those petulant children that texts, "Hey" then if no answer after 30 seconds, "Hey wat r u doing?" and then if still no answer within a minute, "WHY DO U HATE ME!?!?" Then "Answer me!" etc...
 
2012-05-16 12:01:46 PM
farking ridiculous. this is why Americans (as distinct from America) suck.
 
2012-05-16 12:03:33 PM
It depends if you're in the car during the crash. If so getting to jail would require you calling a cab or maybe asking the responding officer to give you a ride.
 
2012-05-16 12:11:56 PM

rumpelstiltskin: From the video, it seems that the lawyer is claiming the texter knew the recipient was driving at the time she texted him. Sure, the driver has a responsibility to not answer the phone, but I don't have a problem with saying the texter has a responsibility to not ask the driver to answer the phone. Every four-year old who's ever goaded a friend into eating a handful of dirt knows that when the dirt-eater throws up, they're both to blame for the mess. The buck doesn't stop at the first dummy in the line.


The driver has the responsibility to IGNORE the phone. The phone going off is hardly "goading" the driver, no matter how many times it happens.

If they can't ignore it, then they should pull over (safely) and check it out after parking.
 
2012-05-16 12:12:01 PM

Elvis_Bogart: No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.


Unless you do know, at which case one argue that a reckless-endangerment charge could be warranted. But full liability for the crash? Probably not.
 
2012-05-16 12:17:23 PM
Time to Sue-

-Facebook
-Google
-Skype
-Your Email provider
-Any ad companies sending you emails
-Your low battery notification

This is farking ridiculous.... tragic that this asshole ran over this couple on their bike (Ive had that happen to me)... but at what point did personal responsibility go out the window. Put the farking phone down.
 
2012-05-16 12:19:20 PM

Millennium: Elvis_Bogart: No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.

Unless you do know, at which case one argue that a reckless-endangerment charge could be warranted. But full liability for the crash? Probably not.


This. If she knew he was driving, there's an outside argument that she has maybe 1-5% liability. If she didn't know, then there is absolutely no basis.
 
2012-05-16 12:19:39 PM

Millennium: Elvis_Bogart: No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.

Unless you do know, at which case one argue that a reckless-endangerment charge could be warranted. But full liability for the crash? Probably not.


Who cares if the person knows the other is driving? Anyone with any common sense would assume the person will check the text when they get to a stop light or someplace else that's safe. Bottom line, the driver has full control and full responsibility over what they do and don't do while they're driving.
 
2012-05-16 12:23:25 PM

ReapTheChaos: Millennium: Elvis_Bogart: No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.

Unless you do know, at which case one argue that a reckless-endangerment charge could be warranted. But full liability for the crash? Probably not.

Who cares if the person knows the other is driving? Anyone with any common sense would assume the person will check the text when they get to a stop light or someplace else that's safe. Bottom line, the driver has full control and full responsibility over what they do and don't do while they're driving.


This is especially true in states where it is illegal to use your cell phone while driving. It shouldn't be the senders obligation to assume the driver will follow the law.
 
2012-05-16 12:23:39 PM
Weinstein argues that Colonna was "electronically present" at the time of the collision

Revoke his license and publicly cane this lawyer please.
 
2012-05-16 12:29:15 PM
I think it's asinine to assert that anyone has a duty to refrain from sending a driver a text message if one knows the driver is driving. Even if you want to assert such a duty, you have major issues proving forseeability and proximate cause. The claim is a load of crap.
 
2012-05-16 12:29:23 PM
img2.timeinc.net
 
2012-05-16 12:33:41 PM
Wow. People in this thread are actually arguing that the person sending a text message might be at fault. Unbelievable.
 
2012-05-16 12:37:00 PM

nyseattitude: Weinstein argues that Colonna was "electronically present" at the time of the collision

Revoke his license and publicly cane this lawyer please.


So that means that when you're chatting with some naked camwhore on the interwebs, you're electronically present?

/slathers self with antibiotics

JC
 
2012-05-16 01:15:14 PM

blahpers: Wow. People in this thread are actually arguing that the person sending a text message might be at fault. Unbelievable.


I think in an extraordinary situation, a sender could theoretically be liable, but it would be truly extraordinary. I think that you would need at least the following:

-Credible evidence, by way of expert medical or psychological analysis, that the driver has some sort of diminished capacity or compulsion that makes him utterly unable to exercise personal willpower to ignore distractions such as a text message or phone call;
-Actual knowledge by the sender that the driver has this diminished capacity or compulsion; and
-Actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the sender that the driver is driving at the time that the text message is sent.

Even with that, there's not necessarily any nexus whatsoever between causing the potential distraction and that distraction being severe enough to cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle.
 
2012-05-16 01:17:09 PM
Seriously? I swear that in order to be a lawyer, you have to lose all your g-d common sense.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-05-16 01:55:48 PM

nikknaack1: I think it's asinine to assert that anyone has a duty to refrain from sending a driver a text message if one knows the driver is driving. Even if you want to assert such a duty, you have major issues proving forseeability and proximate cause. The claim is a load of crap.


Foreseeability and proximate cause are easy. That's why there are laws against a driver texting. Because it's already been done.
If you text someone you know is driving, and you know that person may pick up the phone and begin texting, and that person is involved in an accident, are you really so irresponsible that you wouldn't feel like you had done anything wrong? This is why we have tort laws and lawyers- because the world is full of psycopaths who refuse to realize that what they're doing is wrong. You are the problem, not the laws and lawyers.
 
2012-05-16 01:56:23 PM
Can you sue a radio station because you were listening too intently and crashed?
 
2012-05-16 02:08:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: Can you sue a radio station because you were listening too intently and crashed?


If there were something so peculiar about their particular broadcast that a reasonable person would expect it to result in drivers crashing, then sure.
 
2012-05-16 02:19:52 PM

kronicfeld:
-Credible evidence, by way of expert medical or psychological analysis, that the driver has some sort of diminished capacity or compulsion that makes him utterly unable to exercise personal willpower to ignore distractions such as a text message or phone call;
-Actual knowledge by the sender that the driver has this diminished capacity or compulsion; and


A birth certificate showing the driver is under 40 ought to satisfy the first of these requirements.
 
2012-05-16 02:20:29 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Foreseeability and proximate cause are easy. That's why there are laws against a driver texting. Because it's already been done.
If you text someone you know is driving, and you know that person may pick up the phone and begin texting, and that person is involved in an accident, are you really so irresponsible that you wouldn't feel like you had done anything wrong? This is why we have tort laws and lawyers- because the world is full of psycopaths who refuse to realize that what they're doing is wrong. You are the problem, not the laws and lawyers.


No. Because I know the driver should be smart enough to read my text when they reach their destination.

My wife goes to the grocery store. 2 minutes later, I text her that I forgot to add milk to the list. I expect she's not going to friggin' read and/or respond to that text while in the car.
 
2012-05-16 02:29:46 PM

rumpelstiltskin: ProfessorOhki: Can you sue a radio station because you were listening too intently and crashed?

If there were something so peculiar about their particular broadcast that a reasonable person would expect it to result in drivers crashing, then sure.


Like playing emergency sirens? I farking hate when radio stations/commercials do that. Makes me want to get all stabby...I cannot fathom any reason (other than getting the listeners attention) for blasting that sound. Irresponsible in my opinion.
 
2012-05-16 02:30:37 PM

downstairs: rumpelstiltskin: Foreseeability and proximate cause are easy. That's why there are laws against a driver texting. Because it's already been done.
If you text someone you know is driving, and you know that person may pick up the phone and begin texting, and that person is involved in an accident, are you really so irresponsible that you wouldn't feel like you had done anything wrong? This is why we have tort laws and lawyers- because the world is full of psycopaths who refuse to realize that what they're doing is wrong. You are the problem, not the laws and lawyers.

No. Because I know the driver should be smart enough to read my text when they reach their destination.

My wife goes to the grocery store. 2 minutes later, I text her that I forgot to add milk to the list. I expect she's not going to friggin' read and/or respond to that text while in the car.


That's a fair point- if you send a text message, and have a reasonable expectation that the recipient will not respond to the message while driving, then you haven't done anything wrong. However, that is not necessarily the case here. Here, we have someone who did not respond to the incident with "How was I to know he would be dumb enough to respond? Here, we have someone who responded with "That's what teens do."
 
2012-05-16 02:43:13 PM

Endive Wombat: rumpelstiltskin: ProfessorOhki: Can you sue a radio station because you were listening too intently and crashed?

If there were something so peculiar about their particular broadcast that a reasonable person would expect it to result in drivers crashing, then sure.

Like playing emergency sirens? I farking hate when radio stations/commercials do that. Makes me want to get all stabby...I cannot fathom any reason (other than getting the listeners attention) for blasting that sound. Irresponsible in my opinion.


That bugs the hell out of me as well, but it's not peculiar enough. I don't expect it would cause an accident, simply because it happens all the time and I've never seen it cause an accident. A radio station might be justified in thinking a reasonable person would reason that way, and that's why they keep playing those ads. They're safe. But I don't know for sure, since I don't pretend to be either a radio station or a reasonable person.
 
2012-05-16 03:07:46 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Endive Wombat: rumpelstiltskin: ProfessorOhki: Can you sue a radio station because you were listening too intently and crashed?

If there were something so peculiar about their particular broadcast that a reasonable person would expect it to result in drivers crashing, then sure.

Like playing emergency sirens? I farking hate when radio stations/commercials do that. Makes me want to get all stabby...I cannot fathom any reason (other than getting the listeners attention) for blasting that sound. Irresponsible in my opinion.

That bugs the hell out of me as well, but it's not peculiar enough. I don't expect it would cause an accident, simply because it happens all the time and I've never seen it cause an accident. A radio station might be justified in thinking a reasonable person would reason that way, and that's why they keep playing those ads. They're safe. But I don't know for sure, since I don't pretend to be either a radio station or a reasonable person.


I can think of 2 or 3 times where I jumped a bit when I was listening to music probably a bit louder than I should have been, not to the point that other cars around me were getting annoyed with me, but loud...and a commercial came on and: "whoooo-whoooo, honk, honk, whoooo-whoooo". Yeah, I have swerved a bit because of that. I am not a jumpy person.
 
2012-05-16 04:19:15 PM

LesserEvil: rumpelstiltskin: From the video, it seems that the lawyer is claiming the texter knew the recipient was driving at the time she texted him. Sure, the driver has a responsibility to not answer the phone, but I don't have a problem with saying the texter has a responsibility to not ask the driver to answer the phone. Every four-year old who's ever goaded a friend into eating a handful of dirt knows that when the dirt-eater throws up, they're both to blame for the mess. The buck doesn't stop at the first dummy in the line.

The driver has the responsibility to IGNORE the phone. The phone going off is hardly "goading" the driver, no matter how many times it happens.


Are you implying that my poor impulse control isn't somehow your fault? I'ma gonna sue somebody up in here...
 
2012-05-16 05:14:06 PM
The nature of a text message says it is low priority and it will wait for an answer, check at your leisure.

So, of course they bloody well shouldn't be responsible. Phone call, maybe, if the caller knows they're driving and doesn't end the call. But not a text.

Slippery sloping this shiat could say someone posting a letter which is opened and read in the car could be liable.
 
2012-05-16 05:37:00 PM
When I was in a clinical rotation in school, my group had set up a chat on GroupMe so we could all keep up with what was going on. One of the girls in my group lived about 40 minutes out of town. One night, I'm at my PC and I see a message pop up on the group chat to the tune of "it's so scary, the rain is pouring down, I can't hardly see" and etcetera. Some of the other members typed messages of support. I typed "For the love of God, stop texting and drive!" She came back and said she had pulled over to type that, but I doubt it.

I think the only way a texter could be at fault would be if it was a business text and there was an expectation of acknowledgement or being fired or disciplined; AND it could be proven that the sender knew they were driving and forced them to respond without giving them a chance to pull over. Otherwise I think that if the driver can't handle it, the phone should go in the trunk before they turn the car on. I feel safe using handsfree in my car, but that's me.
 
2012-05-16 06:06:29 PM
Texter has no fault, period. There is no situation in which the texter shares any culpability with the driver, regardless of foreknowledge, awareness of bullshiat medical conditions, etc etc etc. None. All of you who say otherwise are complete and total idiots. I knew there are tons of you on fark, but I didn't think you were this farking stupid.

If a person can not control the urge to handle their phone while driving, they should have either the phone or the car keys or both taken away.
 
2012-05-16 07:25:15 PM

Elvis_Bogart: No.

You have no idea what the recipient is doing when you send it.


rumpelstiltskin: From the video, it seems that the lawyer is claiming the texter knew the recipient was driving at the time she texted him. Sure, the driver has a responsibility to not answer the phone, but I don't have a problem with saying the texter has a responsibility to not ask the driver to answer the phone. Every four-year old who's ever goaded a friend into eating a handful of dirt knows that when the dirt-eater throws up, they're both to blame for the mess. The buck doesn't stop at the first dummy in the line.


I'd argue that knowing someone is driving doesn't mean you know they will answer your text while they are driving, however, it would probably be enough to get the contents of the text. If you are having a text message conversation with someone you know is driving, I think then maybe you are liable. I have ended phone conversations with friends when I realized they were driving and talking to me on their cell phone. (One friend in particular, is a menace while he's talking on the cell phone. Yeah you, Farker Dieselfrost. I'm calling you out. Just don't check this on your phone while you are driving.)
 
2012-05-17 09:15:24 AM

aharown: If a person can not control the urge to handle their phone while driving, they should have either the phone or the car keys or both taken away.


If you put a loaded gun into the hands of a person whom you know to be homicidal, do you have any culpability for that person's actions immediately thereafter?

Putting a handle of vodka in the hands of a recovering alcoholic?

Heroin in the hands of a junkie?

Car keys in the hands of a blackout drunk?

Again, it's an extraordinary situation. But to say that there is no scenario in which there might be liability is foolish.
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report