Girl Sued For Her Boyfriend's Texting-While-Driving Accident

[CaptainREBell]

I can see where the lawyer might be coming from, in that they've followed the chain of causation of the accident and made it go back to her. She texts him (aware that he was driving home from work), he text back and crashed. In assisting a crime, you don't have to be fully aware of the consequences of the action; you just have to be aware that some harm might have been caused by her sending the text. If she believed he would text back while driving, then it does sorta count as her assisting the crime of texting while driving.
that's mostly based on British law though. American law seems pretty crazy, in that everyone wants to sue everyone. I think there's some legal ground for the plaintiff to stand in, but it's not worth the precedent that would be set by ruling in favour of the plaintiff.
I also wonder if it might be linked to phone calls. I can't help but feel that, you can easily call someone while they're driving, and you don't know if they're on bluetooth or speakerphone or driving one handed. The circumstances are too complex.
I think it's fair to text someone while they're driving, because they're probably not gonna break the law to read it and if something's urgent, you ring them.
Law. Ehhhhh.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Its a case that will get thrown out of court, however you cant blame the people for trying to sue (after all they lost their legs and are angry at everything and everyone.

Wouldn't it be nice if instead of just outlawing and suing everyone, governments worked with car companies to develop a safe method to text while driving?

 

[Starke]

Its a case that will get thrown out of court, however you cant blame the people for trying to sue (after all they lost their legs and are angry at everything and everyone.

It probably won't get thrown out, actually. Because it's a legitimate issue that should be addressed during the course of a case. That said, there is precedent that passengers in drunk driving cases aren't liable for the driver being drunk. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the same concept applies here.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Its a case that will get thrown out of court, however you cant blame the people for trying to sue (after all they lost their legs and are angry at everything and everyone.

It probably won't get thrown out, actually. Because it's a legitimate issue that should be addressed during the course of a case. That said, there is precedent that passengers in drunk driving cases aren't liable for the driver being drunk. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the same concept applies here.

Even Denny Crane or Alan Shore would have a hard time getting a successful lawsuit out of that case. It will get thrown out for being a waste of time and money. It's a legitimate issue for the driver who was texting, saying the girl is responsible for someone elses actions when she isn't there is completely stupid and any judge will agree. The precedent it would set would astronomical in it's ability to allow people to sue everyone for everything.

Also to your second point, if there is precedent that passengers in the same car are not responsible for the actions of the driver; how the hell would you be able to nail someone for not being in the same car and sending a text?

 

[madster11]

I'm not a pussy, so i drive a manual car.
As such it's actually very difficult to even talk on the phone while driving, let alone text with a touchscreen. Changing gears with no hands is fairly hard.

And because i'm not a fucking retard i don't text while driving, crash, and then blame the person that was texting me.

Hope this guy lost his balls, too. We don't need dipshits like that damaging the human race's already poor gene pool.

 

[Starke]

Its a case that will get thrown out of court, however you cant blame the people for trying to sue (after all they lost their legs and are angry at everything and everyone.

It probably won't get thrown out, actually. Because it's a legitimate issue that should be addressed during the course of a case. That said, there is precedent that passengers in drunk driving cases aren't liable for the driver being drunk. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the same concept applies here.

Even Denny Crane or Alan Shore would have a hard time getting a successful lawsuit out of that case. It will get thrown out for being a waste of time and money. It's a legitimate issue for the driver who was texting, saying the girl is responsible for someone elses actions when she isn't there is completely stupid and any judge will agree. The precedent it would set would astronomical in it's ability to allow people to sue everyone for everything.

You misunderstand... well, many many things. First, it won't be thrown out, it will almost certainly go to jury.

When a case is "thrown out" it means the plaintiff has failed to articulate a legitimate legal argument. The case is never brought to trial, and dismissed. That almost certainly won't happen here. The only way this avoids a trial at this point is if a settlement is reached.

Also to your second point, if there is precedent that passengers in the same car are not responsible for the actions of the driver; how the hell would you be able to nail someone for not being in the same car and sending a text?

Because, there's also a precedent claiming that if you cover the driver's eyes, or take control of the vehicle away from the driver in some way, you assume some degree of liability for the consequences. Which is, by the way, precisely what the plaintiff's attorney is claiming in this case.

Good enough to win the case? Probably not. Good enough to avoid the case being thrown out? Absolutely.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

So whatcha think folks? Another frivolous lawsuit (i.e. hot coffee in the lap) or is there a genuine case here?

*beep* Wrong! That was not a frivolous lawsuit. That was a case of coffee being kept way above what could possibly be considered a safe temperature for any human being. It wasn't just a case of some dumb american not realising coffee was hot. If you keep coffee just tetering on the brink of turning into plasma, you can't just pipe "You shoulda realized it was hot!" when someone gets scalded.

...Hot as plasma or hot as boiling.... do we need to tell people that coffee is HOT?

 

[TK421]

I don't think it's a genuine case.

As you stated, it's not her fault that he was responding to a text while driving.

Indeed. If she knew he was driving, there may be some room for debate, but probably not much as it was his responsibility to decide when it's ok to text and when it isn't. It's called being an adult and taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[Tanis]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

O, I'm sorry...

OT:
No, this is NOT her fault.

I'm so damn sick of people trying to pin the blame for their own stupidly on someone else.

It was HIS fault for answering HIS phone.

Just because I text you doesn't mean I'm responsible for you trying to answer it during bad times.

 

[Gigano]

Unless the text message she sent said "You have to reply right now even if you're driving!", that lawsuit seem rather hopeless.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Its a case that will get thrown out of court, however you cant blame the people for trying to sue (after all they lost their legs and are angry at everything and everyone.

It probably won't get thrown out, actually. Because it's a legitimate issue that should be addressed during the course of a case. That said, there is precedent that passengers in drunk driving cases aren't liable for the driver being drunk. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the same concept applies here.

Even Denny Crane or Alan Shore would have a hard time getting a successful lawsuit out of that case. It will get thrown out for being a waste of time and money. It's a legitimate issue for the driver who was texting, saying the girl is responsible for someone elses actions when she isn't there is completely stupid and any judge will agree. The precedent it would set would astronomical in it's ability to allow people to sue everyone for everything.

You misunderstand... well, many many things. First, it won't be thrown out, it will almost certainly go to jury.

When a case is "thrown out" it means the plaintiff has failed to articulate a legitimate legal argument. The case is never brought to trial, and dismissed. That almost certainly won't happen here. The only way this avoids a trial at this point is if a settlement is reached.

Also to your second point, if there is precedent that passengers in the same car are not responsible for the actions of the driver; how the hell would you be able to nail someone for not being in the same car and sending a text?

Because, there's also a precedent claiming that if you cover the driver's eyes, or take control of the vehicle away from the driver in some way, you assume some degree of liability for the consequences. Which is, by the way, precisely what the plaintiff's attorney is claiming in this case.

Good enough to win the case? Probably not. Good enough to avoid the case being thrown out? Absolutely.

Huh. In Australia we have had cases dismissed that had more of a legal standing than that. Ah well seems everywhere likes to do things a little differently.

 

[Guffe]

yeah... here we go again, seriously. People can't actually think like this? I mean I know I have some strange thought patterns every now and then but this is just insane. There are way too many things here that can't be taken certainly. I relly really hope she doesn't get any crap for this because it was the boyfriend driving, he looked at the text, it could've been his mom, dad, sister, boss or the president texting him for something and he just happened to pick the phone up at the wrong time.

 

[Guffe]

I'm not a pussy, so i drive a manual car.
As such it's actually very difficult to even talk on the phone while driving, let alone text with a touchscreen. Changing gears with no hands is fairly hard.

And because i'm not a fucking retard i don't text while driving, crash, and then blame the person that was texting me.

Hope this guy lost his balls, too. We don't need dipshits like that damaging the human race's already poor gene pool.

I hope you're not a Finn (from Finland)
Because here you would be considered a pussy for not texting / talking on the phone while driving, yes a manual car. Hell it is illegal here and even the cops do it all the time.
Well we all have our different opinions on stuff, just sayin'.

 

[Altorin]

So whatcha think folks? Another frivolous lawsuit (i.e. hot coffee in the lap) or is there a genuine case here?

*beep* Wrong! That was not a frivolous lawsuit. That was a case of coffee being kept way above what could possibly be considered a safe temperature for any human being. It wasn't just a case of some dumb american not realising coffee was hot. If you keep coffee just tetering on the brink of turning into plasma, you can't just pipe "You shoulda realized it was hot!" when someone gets scalded.

the real thing to remember was that at first, she only wanted them to pay for her medical bills, and the coffee was hot enough to get third degree burns on the inside of her leg. It was only after she was refused the medical bills (which were fairly substantial - she was badly injured, and needed skin grafts), she sued for more, and won.

 

[Sarah Frazier]

*sighs* Stupid "justice" system at its finest, yet again...

Even if she knew he was driving, it was HIS CHOICE to respond while still moving. Unless somebody was holding a gun to his head and told him to respond, the fault is 100% his. If she's one of those neurotic chicks who freak out if they go ignored for 30 seconds? Well... Hopefully he'll grow some balls and tell her to get over it.

 

[Elamdri]

There was a lot going on in that case that never gets talked about. Exactly how hot that coffee was, the extent of the damages that it caused to her inner thighs and crotch, the fact that had the coffee been just a little cooler then it wouldn't have caused quite as much damage as quickly, the fact that they said that McDonalds should have realized that it was much safer to have the McDonalds staff put the cream and sugar in coffee before handing it to customers than having them try to do it in their cars, the fact that the judge SIGNIFICANTLY reduced her jury award, ect.

Wrong on the lowering the temperature count.

"Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. (A British court later rejected this argument as scientifically false, finding that 149 °F (65 °C) liquid could cause deep tissue damage in only two seconds"

She would still have been burned if it had dropped by a large amount.

It would be safer to cut up someones food for them rather than let them use a knife in case they cut themselves, should we implement that now?

I was unaware of the first part, my apologies.

You are missing the point on the second part though. People aren't commonly cutting up things in their cars while they drive. It is fairly common however for people to get coffee from the drivethrough of a restaurant and add cream and sugar. In that situation, it is MUCH safer for the server to add it to the coffee rather than the customer because the server has a stable platform they can put the coffee on that isn't anywhere near their body.

And yes, if people ever start making a habit of cutting up food in their car that they get from the drive through, then I think that yes, restaurants should start cutting it up for them before serving it.

 

[Elamdri]

So whatcha think folks? Another frivolous lawsuit (i.e. hot coffee in the lap) or is there a genuine case here?

*beep* Wrong! That was not a frivolous lawsuit. That was a case of coffee being kept way above what could possibly be considered a safe temperature for any human being. It wasn't just a case of some dumb american not realising coffee was hot. If you keep coffee just tetering on the brink of turning into plasma, you can't just pipe "You shoulda realized it was hot!" when someone gets scalded.

Except she had imbibed of McD's coffee on multiple previous occasions. Thus she knew beforehand just how hot it was. Moreover, she decided to open the cup one handed between her knees in the car. It was rather predictable how things turned out.

There was a lot going on in that case that never gets talked about. Exactly how hot that coffee was, the extent of the damages that it caused to her inner thighs and crotch, the fact that had the coffee been just a little cooler then it wouldn't have caused quite as much damage as quickly, the fact that they said that McDonalds should have realized that it was much safer to have the McDonalds staff put the cream and sugar in coffee before handing it to customers than having them try to do it in their cars, the fact that the judge SIGNIFICANTLY reduced her jury award, ect.

The fact that actual science and not paid courtroom witnesses showed that even coffee 30 degrees cooler(Any lower and the coffee actually tastes WORSE) still causes major thermal tissue damage in under 2 seconds, much less the 20-40 seconds she had the sweatpants on.

I was unaware of that if true, my apologies.

 

[FamoFunk]

Drivers fault. Always will be for being so fucking stupid.

You could innocently text someone and not know they're driving, it's their fault if they choose to respond and anything happens.