Interesting texting case...

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

Garden State continues to crack down on texting while driving

UPDATED 6:02 AM EDT Aug 29, 2013
(CNN) -
We've all heard the dictum: Don't text and drive. Now, a New Jersey state appeals court has an addendum: Don't text a driver -- or you could be held liable if he causes a crash.

Kyle Best was behind the wheel of his pickup in September 2009 driving down a rural highway, when Shannon Colonna sent him a text.

The two were teens at the time. He was 18; she was 17, and they were dating. They sent each other 62 texts that day, according to court documents.

In the opposing lane of traffic, David Kubert was cruising along on a big, blue touring motorcycle with his wife Linda along for the ride. They approached Best at exactly the wrong time.

The texts

A court summary of the times of texts and calls to and from Best's cell phone reflect what happened next:

The teens were having a text chat, volleying each other messages every few moments.

Seventeen seconds after Best sent a text, he was calling a 911 operator.

His truck had drifted across the double center line and hit the Kuberts head-on.

The scene Best described to the emergency operator was most certainly gruesome.

"The collision severed, or nearly severed David's left leg. It shattered Linda's left leg, leaving her fractured thighbone protruding out of the skin as she lay injured in the road," the court document said.

Best hung up. Colonna texted him two more times.

The court did not publish the contents of their messages.

The lawsuit

The Kuberts both lost their legs. They sued.

But they didn't just go after Best. They included Colonna in the lawsuit.

In their minds, she was distracting him and was also responsible for their pain and loss.

They settled with Best and lost against Colonna, but they appealed that decision.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Weinstein, argued that the text sender was electronically in the car with the driver receiving the text and should be treated like someone sitting next to him willfully causing a distraction, legal analyst Marc Saperstein told CNN affiliate WPIX.

The argument seemed to work.

The ruling

On Tuesday, three appeals court judges agreed with it -- in principle.

They ruled that if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold her liable for the accident.

"We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted," the court said.

But the judges let Colonna off the hook.

She had a habit of sending more than 100 texts a day and was oblivious to whether recipients were driving or not.

"I'm a young teenager. That's what we do," she said in her deposition before the original trial.

Since she was unaware that Best was texting while driving, she bore no responsibility, the court decided.

"In this appeal, we must also decide whether plaintiffs have shown sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment in favor of the remote texter. We conclude they have not," it said.

The reaction

During the trial, Colonna, now 21, found it "weird" that the plaintiffs' tried to nail down whether she knew Best was texting behind the wheel, the court document said.

The judges' decision has elicited a similar response from the state's governor Chris Christie.

The driver is ultimately responsible, he said. Not someone sending him a text.

"You have the obligation to keep your eyes on the road, your hands on the wheel and pay attention to what you're doing," he told radio station New Jersey 101.5.

Other New Jerseyites agreed.

"That's completely absurd, just because you know you're driving doesn't mean, it really doesn't mean they know you're looking at it," Joe Applegate told CNN affiliate WPIX.

"Even talking to the driver can distract them, so they are going to arrest for someone who simply talked to someone who is driving?" asked Louise McKellip.

The future

New Jersey has been cracking down hard on texting and driving in recent years, implementing new laws and regulations that treat it in a similar manner as drunk driving, if it involves an injury accident.

The state passed a law last year based on the fate of the Kuberts' and others who had been killed or maimed by texting motorists.

The Kulesh, Kubert and Bolish Law makes distracted driving a crime, if the driver causes an accident. Fines for bodily injury run as high as $150,000, and the driver can go to jail for up to 10 years.

And new legislation proposed by state Sen. James Holzapfel would let cops thumb through cellphones if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that the driver was talking or texting when the wreck occurred.

The bill has set off alarm bells with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
http://www.wesh.com/news/national-news/ ... index.html
CWHOKIECPA
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: In your Moms mouth
Location: Mom's basement.

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by CWHOKIECPA »

I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
My women clients think I'm so sweet.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

How far are we from legal disclaimers on text messages? We're becoming less a country of laws, and more a country of lawyers every day...

Hokie5150 wrote:
Garden State continues to crack down on texting while driving

UPDATED 6:02 AM EDT Aug 29, 2013
(CNN) -
We've all heard the dictum: Don't text and drive. Now, a New Jersey state appeals court has an addendum: Don't text a driver -- or you could be held liable if he causes a crash.

Kyle Best was behind the wheel of his pickup in September 2009 driving down a rural highway, when Shannon Colonna sent him a text.

The two were teens at the time. He was 18; she was 17, and they were dating. They sent each other 62 texts that day, according to court documents.

In the opposing lane of traffic, David Kubert was cruising along on a big, blue touring motorcycle with his wife Linda along for the ride. They approached Best at exactly the wrong time.

The texts

A court summary of the times of texts and calls to and from Best's cell phone reflect what happened next:

The teens were having a text chat, volleying each other messages every few moments.

Seventeen seconds after Best sent a text, he was calling a 911 operator.

His truck had drifted across the double center line and hit the Kuberts head-on.

The scene Best described to the emergency operator was most certainly gruesome.

"The collision severed, or nearly severed David's left leg. It shattered Linda's left leg, leaving her fractured thighbone protruding out of the skin as she lay injured in the road," the court document said.

Best hung up. Colonna texted him two more times.

The court did not publish the contents of their messages.

The lawsuit

The Kuberts both lost their legs. They sued.

But they didn't just go after Best. They included Colonna in the lawsuit.

In their minds, she was distracting him and was also responsible for their pain and loss.

They settled with Best and lost against Colonna, but they appealed that decision.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Stephen Weinstein, argued that the text sender was electronically in the car with the driver receiving the text and should be treated like someone sitting next to him willfully causing a distraction, legal analyst Marc Saperstein told CNN affiliate WPIX.

The argument seemed to work.

The ruling

On Tuesday, three appeals court judges agreed with it -- in principle.

They ruled that if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold her liable for the accident.

"We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted," the court said.

But the judges let Colonna off the hook.

She had a habit of sending more than 100 texts a day and was oblivious to whether recipients were driving or not.

"I'm a young teenager. That's what we do," she said in her deposition before the original trial.

Since she was unaware that Best was texting while driving, she bore no responsibility, the court decided.

"In this appeal, we must also decide whether plaintiffs have shown sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment in favor of the remote texter. We conclude they have not," it said.

The reaction

During the trial, Colonna, now 21, found it "weird" that the plaintiffs' tried to nail down whether she knew Best was texting behind the wheel, the court document said.

The judges' decision has elicited a similar response from the state's governor Chris Christie.

The driver is ultimately responsible, he said. Not someone sending him a text.

"You have the obligation to keep your eyes on the road, your hands on the wheel and pay attention to what you're doing," he told radio station New Jersey 101.5.

Other New Jerseyites agreed.

"That's completely absurd, just because you know you're driving doesn't mean, it really doesn't mean they know you're looking at it," Joe Applegate told CNN affiliate WPIX.

"Even talking to the driver can distract them, so they are going to arrest for someone who simply talked to someone who is driving?" asked Louise McKellip.

The future

New Jersey has been cracking down hard on texting and driving in recent years, implementing new laws and regulations that treat it in a similar manner as drunk driving, if it involves an injury accident.

The state passed a law last year based on the fate of the Kuberts' and others who had been killed or maimed by texting motorists.

The Kulesh, Kubert and Bolish Law makes distracted driving a crime, if the driver causes an accident. Fines for bodily injury run as high as $150,000, and the driver can go to jail for up to 10 years.

And new legislation proposed by state Sen. James Holzapfel would let cops thumb through cellphones if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that the driver was talking or texting when the wreck occurred.

The bill has set off alarm bells with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
http://www.wesh.com/news/national-news/ ... index.html
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie CPA »

CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
USN_Hokie wrote:How far are we from legal disclaimers on text messages? We're becoming less a country of laws, and more a country of lawyers every day...
This is a load of crap. The person who SENT the text should be in no way accountable for what happens if the idiot to whom he sent a text doesn't come to a stop before picking up his phone and reading it. It's the DRIVER'S responsibility to not read that text while he's driving. I'm sorry, but there's just NO SUCH THING as an "Urgent Text." If it's urgent, then dial the stupid number and CALL the person... don't send them a text.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by nolanvt »

Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I agree, but even at that, the onus should be placed on the driver to not engage in text communications.
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.

If we need big daddy gov't to save us from looking at our phones after an irresistible incoming text tone, then I guess we need gov't to run every part of our lives.

Maybe we charge restaurants if they knowingly serve fat people large portions?
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.
I don't see where being held accountable for knowingly causing a distraction to a driver is a big government position. Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility, but there is a contributory factor if you knowingly cause the distraction.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by cwtcr hokie »

texting is really stupid behind the wheel, no way to pay attention to the road while you are putting together words on a small phone. But drivers in general suck these days, I see such stupid crap happening every day on my way to the office and back home and I usually have to take actions to keep myself out of wrecks every day due to other drivers that just suck
USN_Hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.

If we need big daddy gov't to save us from looking at our phones after an irresistible incoming text tone, then I guess we need gov't to run every part of our lives.

Maybe we charge restaurants if they knowingly serve fat people large portions?
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

nolanvt wrote:I agree, but even at that, the onus should be placed on the driver to not engage in text communications.
True, but I can certainly understand a contributory aspect in terms of a lawsuit.
User avatar
Hokie CPA
Posts: 2634
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 am
Alma Mater: Norfolk Academy to Virginia Tech
Party: I reject your party
Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie CPA »

Hokie5150 wrote:
nolanvt wrote:I agree, but even at that, the onus should be placed on the driver to not engage in text communications.
True, but I can certainly understand a contributory aspect in terms of a lawsuit.
I can't. It's ridiculous. I'm sorry, but it can wait until the next red light. There's no such thing as an URGENT TEXT. Leave that goddamned phone alone until the car is safely no longer in motion.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.

Image
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

Hokie5150 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.
I don't see where being held accountable for knowingly causing a distraction to a driver is a big government position. Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility, but there is a contributory factor if you knowingly cause the distraction.
Knowingly cause a distraction? Sending a text message doesn't do a damn thing. The driver can silence their phone, turn it off, or ignore the message.

What happened to personal responsibility?
User avatar
Major Kong
Posts: 15727
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:35 pm
Alma Mater: Ferrum VT ASU
Party: Independent
Location: Somewhere between Marion and Seven Mile Ford

I do not text...

Post by Major Kong »

and I don't accept text by that I mean I don't open 'em.

Yeah it's so 20th Century but it's something that I've held steadfastly to. :D

As to the thread subject would it apply to Spam text and their originators? If it does I'm all for it. :P
I only post using 100% recycled electrons.

Image
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Hokie5150 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.
I don't see where being held accountable for knowingly causing a distraction to a driver is a big government position. Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility, but there is a contributory factor if you knowingly cause the distraction.
I'm surprised that you hold this position.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by ip_law-hokie »

Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
The person sending the text could not have expected the addressee to wait until a safe time to check it?
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by ip_law-hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
The person sending the text could not have expected the addressee to wait until a safe time to check it?
BTW, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if they were going after someone who called someone they new was driving. But even then, there is voicemail. . . .

Can't believe I'm telling you this, but it should boil down to the personal responsibility of the driver.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
CWHOKIECPA
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:50 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: In your Moms mouth
Location: Mom's basement.

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by CWHOKIECPA »

Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?
My women clients think I'm so sweet.
Florida Hokie
Posts: 3676
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:05 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Like a Rock Star

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Florida Hokie »

YEah - why not say the motorcycle driver bore some responsibility too since he reasonably should have known the drvier was distracted.

I'm perplexed 5150.
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

ip_law-hokie wrote:BTW, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if they were going after someone who called someone they new was driving. But even then, there is voicemail. . . .
It appears tha was the case here:
They ruled that if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold her liable for the accident.
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

Florida Hokie wrote:YEah - why not say the motorcycle driver bore some responsibility too since he reasonably should have known the drvier was distracted.
Why would that be the case?
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.
I don't see where being held accountable for knowingly causing a distraction to a driver is a big government position. Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility, but there is a contributory factor if you knowingly cause the distraction.
Knowingly cause a distraction? Sending a text message doesn't do a damn thing. The driver can silence their phone, turn it off, or ignore the message.

What happened to personal responsibility?
It's an arithmetic problem, not logic.

The lawyers double the people they can extract money from if they can sue both the sender and receiver. So if Alec Baldwin sends a txt to his kid, the kid reads it and causes an accident, the lawyer can get Alec's money and not just the phantom income the kid lives off.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
The person sending the text could not have expected the addressee to wait until a safe time to check it?
Correct, we're all little kids, that's why we need government to save us from ourselves.

/sarcasm
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.
I don't see where being held accountable for knowingly causing a distraction to a driver is a big government position. Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility, but there is a contributory factor if you knowingly cause the distraction.
Knowingly cause a distraction? Sending a text message doesn't do a damn thing. The driver can silence their phone, turn it off, or ignore the message.

What happened to personal responsibility?
It's an arithmetic problem, not logic.

The lawyers double the people they can extract money from if they can sue both the sender and receiver. So if Alec Baldwin sends a txt to his kid, the kid reads it and causes an accident, the lawyer can get Alec's money and not just the phantom income the kid lives off.
That is the root cause in the case linked in the OP - we've talked about this on UWS before.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by USN_Hokie »

CWHOKIECPA wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?
Good example. Maybe we could sue the car manufacturers for putting buttons on the dash that they know people are going to try and use...
User avatar
Hokie5150
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Interesting texting case...

Post by Hokie5150 »

USN_Hokie wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:
Hokie5150 wrote:
CWHOKIECPA wrote:I read that this morning. I just don't understand the texting while driving thing. I disagree with being able to go after the person that sent the text to the driver that got into the accident.
I can see IF it can be proven the person sending the text knew the recipient was driving.
I can't. It's the responsibility of the person receiving the texts to make a decision on whether or not to pick up the phone. Could we sue the radio DJ for playing a song that a person likes? The person goes to turn up the radio and gets in an accident. Could you sue then?
Good example. Maybe we could sue the car manufacturers for putting buttons on the dash that they know people are going to try and use...
If you are in a car with someone and cause a distraction that causes to driver to wreck, are you at all to blame?
Post Reply