NJ judge to decide whether sender of text message liable for crash/injuries

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2012/05/07/246534.htm

 

The twist-- the victim or victims are suing the person who sent the message to the driver who caused the crash while reading the text, claiming that she knew, or should have known that the recipient was driving.

Views: 321

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 7, 2012 at 12:55pm

No, this isn't the Onion.  This is real...

Why not sue the demons that are influencing the driver of the car while they are at it?

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 7, 2012 at 1:28pm

Unf*@kingbelievable!  That driver should be on the hook - period.

Permalink Reply by David on May 8, 2012 at 3:31am

Just to be a bit contrary, I can imagine situations where I think the text-sender should share liability.  For example, imagine a boss sending out texts to the delivery drivers and insisting on immediate responses at all times.    For a 19-year-old, I can imagine situations where a parent might share liability.  So it's reasonable for the Judge to investigate the facts before deciding if the case should go forward, which is all that's happening here. 

If, as the article implies, the text message just came from a friend then I agree the suit is ridiculous, but on the other hand I always found it a bit ridiculous that you could be held liable for serving a beer to somebody who later decided to drive drunk, so what do I know?

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on May 8, 2012 at 6:20am

This is another neat drop in the bucket of coming up on a century of moving liability away from the person who drove their ton of steel into somebody.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 8, 2012 at 6:26am

+1

Because people just can't be bothered to actually THINK or CARE about others on the road and the dangers they are putting them under all for the sake of getting 15 seconds faster commute times.   They are so divorced from the consequences of their actions (or inactions as the case may be) that they can't even SEE the risks they are taking with other people's lives for the sake of petty conveniences, much less care.


There is NO SUCH THING as an accident.  Nearly every situation that occurs on the road where a collision with a ped, bike, or other auto could and would be avoided if they were only to slow down a little bit, not push and jam ahead so hard, and give more of a "safety cushion" to account for the unknown that may happen.  Even the "oh, I blew a tire on that corner and lost control" is BS as they shouldn't have been going so fast around that corner that a blow-out would compromise their control.  It's all BS excuses.  And people behind the wheel are always making excuses for why it "isn't their fault!"
 



Peenworm Grubologist said:

This is another neat drop in the bucket of coming up on a century of moving liability away from the person who drove their ton of steel into somebody.

Permalink Reply by S on May 8, 2012 at 6:40am





James BlackHeron said:





 

There is NO SUCH THING as an accident.  Nearly every situation that occurs on the road where a collision with a ped, bike, or other auto could and would be avoided if they were only to slow down a little bit, not push and jam ahead so hard, and give more of a "safety cushion" to account for the unknown that may happen.  Even the "oh, I blew a tire on that corner and lost control" is BS as they shouldn't have been going so fast around that corner that a blow-out would compromise their control.  It's all BS excuses.  And people behind the wheel are always making excuses for why it "isn't their fault!"
 

 





Except for there are situations where a failure would be catastrophic.  Your hypothetical blowout on a turn would potentially be unrecoverable if it were to occur on a freeway.  Likewise a cv joint failure could result in an uncontrollable vehicle.  Yes, if you're going slow enough both of these situations would not be a problem but then you're doing 5-10 mph everywhere.

In a bike context, brake lines snapping or a front tire blowing out or a spoke in the front breaking could cause a crash if you're doing more than 5-8 mph.  Would you say that it's the cyclist's fault if those things occurred?

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 8, 2012 at 6:51am

I'd only consider it the cyclist's fault if the mechanical failure were due to someone's utter neglect of their bike's mechanical condition.  

S said:

Except for there are situations where a failure would be catastrophic.  Your hypothetical blowout on a turn would potentially be unrecoverable if it were to occur on a freeway.  Likewise a cv joint failure could result in an uncontrollable vehicle.  Yes, if you're going slow enough both of these situations would not be a problem but then you're doing 5-10 mph everywhere.

In a bike context, brake lines snapping or a front tire blowing out or a spoke in the front breaking could cause a crash if you're doing more than 5-8 mph.  Would you say that it's the cyclist's fault if those things occurred?

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 26, 2012 at 2:43am

yay

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 28, 2012 at 2:01am

I'm glad the judge showed common sense on this.  Sets a much better precedent.

h' said:

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service