United We Stand - uwsboard.com

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

USN_Hokie wrote:I thought you were a libertarian? Drivers still have the option of not touching their fricking phone in the car.

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?

nolanvt wrote:I agree, but even at that, the onus should be placed on the driver to not engage in text communications.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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. . . .

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

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...