Oklahoma Schools Destroyed by Tornado Lacked ‘Safe Rooms’
Connecticut Court Rules That Lawyers Can’t Be Sued for Fraud
Wage and Hour Claims Among Top Threats to U.S. Employers
Cyber Attacks On Banks More Serious Than Public Realizes
E&O Insights: Restaurant and Tavern Risks
CEA’s First CIO Reflects C-Suite Trend
Golf and Country Clubs Weather the Storm
Midwest AGs Go After Storm-Chasing Roofing CompaniesFree Newsletters
Sign up to receive insurance news alerts!Most Popular
Current Issue
Editors and Contributors
-
Andrea WellsAgency Compensation Playbook: 2013 Agency Salary Survey -
Andrew G. SimpsonHow Process Improvement Drives Agency Profitability -
Stephanie JonesThe Acquisition Cycle -
Don JerglerIndustry Predictions -
Chris BurandReasonable Compensation -
Andrea WellsPersonal Lines: How Technology is Changing the Way Agents Do Business
The perk of email or text over a phone call is that the receiver can read it as his/her convenience and when it is safe. It’s completely in the control and responsibility of the person receiving the text not to look at their phone until it is safe to do so.
if it’s agains the law it’s against the law… the driver knows that text, whether reading or sending is not allowed while driving a vehicle… it’s just like the drunk who gets behind the wheel… how can a bartender know if he drove there with his vehicle? how will they know what BAC is of the individual? unless they have a breathalyzer, there is now way… what to say he stopped briefly in a parking lot and made the original text? it’s like holding a conversation – she would not have known if he continued to drive… i know that it’s a tragedy, but it’s not the sender here – it’s the recieve here who knows better! it’d be like hey, you took a picture of me and that is why i could not maintain proper control – the flash of the light from the camera ticket… where is personal accountability?
I think wudchuck was texting and driving during his response.
I agree with what wudchuck says. How does anyone know when texting what the other person is doing? It is up to the driver not to read texts or write texts while operating a vehicle. The sender doesn’t have control; the receiver of the text does. If I spoke to Bernie Madoff on the phone it doesn’t make me guilty of his crime. If I sold a Bentley to John Goodman, that doesn’t make me guilty of his drunk driving escapade.
wudchuck – you hit the nail on the head with your last statement. Where is personal responsibility in our society. Have we lost common sense, the ability to reason, have we just become so stupid that we jump of a bridge and don’t think the landing will hurt? Is that the bridge builders fault. Or as Wayne noted (my reading between the lines), have lawyers and greed become our brains.
wudchuck this is one of those rare moments when I agree with you. However I don’t think this is a personal accountability issue, it’s a “get whatever I can from where ever I can get it” issue.
TN – Perhaps you are right in that this is just a “greed thing.”
First, I appreciate what you’re trying to say about personal accountability and I definitely agree with your general argument. Honestly though, it doesn’t sound as if the driver is trying to avoid responsibility, rather, it sounds like the victims’ lawyers are a little too eager and overzealous. But to say this is analogous to a bartender’s responsibility for a drunk driver isn’t quite accurate because in most states dram shop laws do actually impose liability on bars and bartenders when a a customer leaves the establishment, drives drunk, and causes damage or injury. Not that I agree with these laws…but I hope the text sender’s lawyer doesn’t try to use your example in his arguments!
Come on, now I have to know if the person I’m sending a txt too is driving??? What about the guys who’s driving and decides to pick up the txt. I’m ditchin my Iphone, too many rules!
looks like a clear cut case of negligence to me.
And the legal system wonders why people hate lawyers.
There is no longer personal accountability – I’ll sue MacDonald’s for not warning me that the coffee is extremely hot and after I win, I’ll sue them for making me fat.
To quote Seth Meyers’ SNL “Weekend Update” anchorman, “Really?”
here’s another great example… and it went to court… and lost…
parents sued because their kids took on roles of the cartoons characters and even the WWF and were hurt. so there will be no way this will go any further… if so, wow, that would open so many other lawsuits!
Greed? Let’s look at the circumstances. These injuries were devastating. The 19-yr old kid, probably only had minimum limits because that’s all his parents could afford. How much UM/UIM limit do buy, 100, 300? On a motorcycle, those premiums have to be tremendous.
Greed? They probably have medical in the 500K range, without all the prosthetics, physical therapy, etc. They’ve had their lives destroyed and are trying to find any solution they can.
Regardless of the intentions…tragic.
Prayers for families.
I’ll bet they didn’t have that much UM on the policy. UM is expensive and often ignored by cycle riders. “Won’t happen to me”, “I only ride on weekends”, “don’t go far from home”, etc. I’ve heard it all. The fact is accidents happen and will continue. Yes, it is a tragedy.
This lawyer missed the deep pockets and the greater responsibility. Sue GM, Verizon, or Apple over the thousands of deaths they have caused. They admit the technology exists to prevent a text from being sent by the driver of a moving car. They could also block cell phone use by the driver. After a few such suits greed will then increase safety. Greed isn’t bad. It just needs to be adjusted for externalities.
Good idea but wait until someone needs to use cellphone for personal safety/attack while being driven and can’t. Then comes a new type of suit.
problem is if you block cell phone usage by the driver, how does it know if there is a passenger and whose phone is ringing? GREED, is the individual along with the lawyer who wants lots of money for little work. how many times do we as parents, so call preach to our kids about rules of the road and common sense — how many times do we hear our kids say, i know! well, it’s time to understand that you are held accountable for your actions!
So the driver was able to get a license after many hours of drivers ed training. That implies enough intelligence to operate a vehicle RESPONSIBLY. Do we really need to have cell phone ed training too? I think we should sue the lawyers that sue the innocent by shifting the blame!!
A short note to washla-
I have mentioned here before that I taught drivers ed for a large well known company. I complained that the course never addressed vehicle control issues amoung other things that my students asked about. My employer told me to shut up because drivers ed is designed to get a license for the student, not to teach them to drive.
Back in the day when I first started driving my parents told me I could not have more than 1 passenger and I was not allowed to turn on the radio. I followed their instructions and stayed out of trouble.
The only thing more stupid and idiotic then the driver who caused the accident are the lawyers who told someone that they could go after the girl who sent the text in the first place. Must have been a slow day chasing ambulances.
Can’t wait for the article to read: Judge to decide if the two injured on bike should share in the fault for being on the road at the same time that the driver decided to read the text message that his friend sent while he was driving…….
This judges name is Karnak…
It helps to have more of the “facts” of the case when discussing legal issues since the ‘devil is in the details’. According to an interview with the plaintiff attorney (at ABC news), his argument is that the remote texter knew, plainly, that her boyfriend was driving at the time and continued a dialog by text. His argument also continues that she had intimate knowledge of his daily schedule and would have reasonably expected that he’d be behind the wheel when she engaged in the texting.
Looking at the earlier comments in these comment threads, the comparison isn’t as much about a bartender serving alcohol to a patron, but serving alcohol to someone already clearly intoxicated and known to have a drinking and driving history. The young man in the car is argued to be negligent with the duty owed to be driving responsibly (legally – not texting). The argument isn’t about sending a “blind” text to someone, but to choose to engage them when you are already reasonably certain that they’re driving, and continue when you recognize that they’re driving. Are you then, aiding and abetting the commission of a misdemeanor (becoming a literally defined Accessory to the crime)?
legaly – don’t think so. if an attorney wants to spend more money on frivilous pursuits, i hope that the client has plenty of money to keep spending… whether blind or not! you don’t have to answer the text or respond! he could have even turned that phone off! be responsible!
And the drunk at the bar should stop drinking when he can’t stand up — let alone get behind the wheel. However, if the bartender keeps serving him, then there’s liability for the barkeeper’s actions, too. Texting someone in a state where texting while driving is illegal AND when you clearly know that they ARE presently driving, isn’t like serving an already intoxicated patron? OR at a minimum, “ACCESSORY” to a misdemeanor?
can he not just turn the phone off?! afterall, he does not need to respond! and he knew it was against the law and now he’s having to tell other kids the same thing…
suprised he was not suspended for his license. again, PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY!
If we had “Loser Pay”, as every other nation in the world. These lawsuits would fix themselves. They have nothing to lose. file, file, file…….
So basically if you are liable if you call or text someone while they are driving and they cause an accident, then the only time you could call or text someone is if they are sitting right in front of you, because that’s the only way you would know FOR SURE that they weren’t driving. Ridiculous! It’s the person driving who is responsible PERIOD!
So, if I decide to read the newspaper while I’m driving and I have an accident, I can sue my paperboy?? Or, maybe I received a UPS package that I decide to open while driving, now I can sue UPS if I wreck my car? What a bunch of BS.
knowingly know that the person is driving? is whose responsibility? herein lies the problem. just because i want to have a conversation, the reciever is the one that can decide to continue. in this case a text message, does not force you to carry on a conversation! it’s just like the phone call, you have to pick up the reciever and talk to commit yourself to a conversation. remember a conversation is a two-way street! just remember it was wrong to be texting while driving, including reading that text! if it’s wrong it’s wrong, it’s not right! SO, stop trying to go further! TAKE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! parents be forewarned – if you own the car, you have to be responsible for allowing your kids to drive that vehicle!
…somewhere there’s a dead horse being beaten…