Should This Girl Be Sued For Texting? (elect, money, world)

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

Scroll down to the bottom of the page in the link motion put up a few posts earlier and they have the NHTSA survey and it shows that changing the radiio and talking in the car or dealing with kids are more "distracting" than phones. Better ban all that and eating too so the roads are safe. Fact is you take a chance every time you get behind the wheel. You don't want to take that chance then walk. Legislating nonsense won't help. Hell it's against the friggen law to drive drunk and folks do it all the time. This will just open the door up for more fines and nonsense to shake down the public to fund more crap for big bro.

And if it was YOU who lost your leg you'd be saying the same thing, no doubt, right?

And if one of your children died in a car accident where the other driver was texting, you'd be OK with that, too, right? "Thank goodness they died FREE of regulations", right?

It wouldn't make you any more sad or angry that a child was killed in a PREVENTABLE accident, right?

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Kracer

The driver did not need to respond immediately did he?

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Weak. We are not talking about the actions of the driver but if the girl on the receiving/sending end of the texting is liable for his actions, his bad choices, his irresponsibility in texting and driving.

Originally Posted by Bulldawg82

This girl does not share the blame. The person reading the text has the choice to read it while he drives or pull over to read it - OR read it at a later time. Does the person who writes a snail-mail letter become responsible because the person chose to read the letter while they were driving? This is a dangerous slippery-slope.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

"Should This Girl Be Sued For Texting?"

Of course not. How dumb! Can I get in a wreck because I'm checking my email via cell phone and then blame it on those pesky companies sending me junk mail? No? Then this girl is innocent.

Group slam.

You all need to familiarize yourself with the legal concept of Aiding.

And of Abetting.

And of Complicity.

The girl was the proximate cause of the accident. That is well-established case law. Sorry.

If I give you a gun knowing that you might use that gun in the commission of a crime, then I have Aided, and Abetted and I am Complicity in the crime.

If I give you bullets knowing that you might use the bullets in a gun during the commission of a crime, then I am guilty of Aiding, Abetting and I am Complicit to the crime.

That is Criminal Law 101.

The fact that I am guilty also means I am culpable under civil law, and that is Torts 101.

In order for me to be victorious here and have judgment entered against the defendant, all I have to do is show using a preponderance of evidence that she knew, or that she should have known, or that she had reason to believe her boyfriend was operating a motor vehicle at the time the text message(s) was sent.

That's it.

See how friggin' easy is that?

I can see why none of you are attorneys.

Let's discuss time frame. Suppose I give you a gun, and a year later you commit a crime. Am I guilty of Aiding, Abetting or Complicity? That is a matter for a jury to decide. The jury will have to weigh the facts and come to a conclusion. Their conclusion will based on the actual crime committed. If a liquor store robbery, no criminal or civil jury would find me liable, but if the spouse was killed, it's likely that a jury would find me culpable, If I was a mere acquaintance, a jury might conclude that I am not liable, but if we had been friends for any length of time, a jury might conclude that I knew you well enough to know the problems in your marriage and your frame of mind, and that you might actually carry out a plan to cause harm.

For multiple defendants, juries assign a percentage of liability. This case is instructive.

Security Company A fires a security guard.

The guard applies at Security Company B who do their due diligence and contact Security Company A to learn about the guard's employment.

Security Company A holds the blatantly false and erroneous belief that it is barred by law from telling Security Company B why it fired the security guard. Security Company A discloses only the dates of employment and refuses to characterize the termination as voluntary or involuntary, and refuses to discuss any other aspects of the guard's employment with them.

Without any contrary evidence, Security Company B hires security guard and assigns him to an apartment complex. The guard helps a drunken female tenant to her apartment, then goes to the manager's office, obtains the key, returns to the tenant's apartment and rapes her.

She sues the property owners, the property management company, and both security companies.

The jury assesses liability:

1] Security Company A = 80%
2] Security Company B = 15%
3] Property Manager = 5%
4] Property Owners = 0%

Security Company A fired the guard for theft, and suspected that he committed other thefts and also suspected that he committed other rapes using the same Modus Operandi while working at apartment complexes.

Security Company A had a duty to disclose that to Security Company B, and they failed or refused, so they bear the brunt of the damages (which was several $Million).

Anyway, you people are really weak on your liability issues. Yes, he did have a choice to read or not read the text messages, but that is only part of the issue.

If you give someone a gun, and they use it to commit a crime, and then you argue, "Hey it ain't my fault, because he had a choice" you will find yourself in prison and then with a large jury award in judgment against you.

800 years of English Common Law and 250 years of American jurisprudence says you're wrong.

Legally..

Mircea

Originally Posted by Jaggy001

Simple solution ..... you receive a text in the car then don't look at it and don't respond to it until you are no longer driving. Just because someone sends me a text does not mean I have to read it. Personal responsibility.

Yes, but she is still liable for sending the messages.

I smell the foul odor of claims of "I'm addicted to my cell-phone and text messaging" and an entire class of people getting Social Security Disability Benefits due to their "addiction."

Predicting...

Mircea

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDC

People don't seem to know the details of that case, admittedly I didn't either till I did some research. It turns out the woman got third degree burns from spilling the coffee on herself. Third degree! The deepest kind of burn. I've had boiling crab bisque splash up on my wrist and it barely left a mark after a week, and that still hurt like hell. I can't imagine what a third degree burn is like, but coffee should never be hot enough to cause a burn like that.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't change my view of the situation even if it had killed her. If you're dumb enough to put hot coffee, no matter how hot it is, in between your own legs and not expect to get burned, then you're too stupid to have a drivers license. The severity of her injuries makes no difference in who's responsible for them.... she was. Jurors are swayed by emotional pleas, which is why when you sue for things like this it's great to have a sympathetic "victim". Because laws and logic be damned if the person is sympathetic enough, doesn't make it right though.

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

And if it was YOU who lost your leg you'd be saying the same thing, no doubt, right?

And if one of your children died in a car accident where the other driver was texting, you'd be OK with that, too, right? "Thank goodness they died FREE of regulations", right?

It wouldn't make you any more sad or angry that a child was killed in a PREVENTABLE accident, right?

Would you be ok if you were in a car accident where the driver was distracted by talking to someone else which happens much more according to the survey posted? This is the problem you cell phone haters are having. I suggest you use common sense instead of ranting and raving about cell phones.

[Little-Acorn]

Should This Girl Be Sued For Texting?


What silly nonsense.

Next time some guy causes a wreck by looking down at the radio to adjust a knob instead of watching where he was going, should the victims also sue the broadcasting station?

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by HurricaneDC

According to the wiki link there had been several complaints of burns from McDonald's coffee. Guess nobody bothered taking it to court till the old lady ended up needing skin grafting because of it.

Nobody bothered because folks spill drinks a millions of times a day across the world.

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Even after being schooled you act like the bully. I wonder what you get from it.

If this woman had been handed the coffee and turned around and bumped into a child, spilling it on their head, this would be a different convo. There wouldn't be the LOL factor of her putting it between her legs, which most people never get past.

LOL now I'm a coffee bully? Yes people never spilled coffee on children before evil mcdonalds went into operation. At least you believe that it appears.

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Even after being schooled you act like the bully. I wonder what you get from it.

If this woman had been handed the coffee and turned around and bumped into a child, spilling it on their head, this would be a different convo. There wouldn't be the LOL factor of her putting it between her legs, which most people never get past.

No, then it'd be the dumb parents fault for not watching their children better and her fault (maybe) for not watching where SHE was going.

It's like that little boy several years ago that got mangled on a disneyland/world ride. His father and grandmother were in the Roger rabbit car with the 2/3 year old toddler and they ALLOWED him to climb out of the car and the car ran over him. They sued DISNEY!!! Because THEY couldn't watch their own child well enough to keep him in the car. I think Disney had settled out of court, which I was hoping they'd fight em all the way until the family was bankrupt. But after the mcdonalds thing, they knew a jury would always side against the big corporation instead of the stupid people.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by Mircea

You all need to familiarize yourself with the legal concept of Aiding. And of Abetting. And of Complicity.

The girl was the proximate cause of the accident. That is well-established case law. Sorry.

If I give you a gun knowing that you might use that gun in the commission of a crime, then I have Aided, and Abetted and I am Complicity in the crime.

If I give you bullets knowing that you might use the bullets in a gun during the commission of a crime, then I am guilty of Aiding, Abetting and I am Complicit to the crime.

"might", huh? So if I run someone over with my car, the person who sold me the car is guilty of aiding and abetting, and complicit? After all, I might use it to commit a crime. Quite a world you suggest we should be content to live in...

Originally Posted by Mircea

In order for me to be victorious here and have judgment entered against the defendant, all I have to do is show using a preponderance of evidence that she knew, or that she should have known, or that she had reason to believe her boyfriend was operating a motor vehicle at the time the text message(s) was sent.

Regardless of what it takes to win a case, it'd be wrong to go through with it. Do you not realize that your sort of thinking renders anyone walking down the street doing something, wearing something, or just looking somewhat out of the ordinary susceptible to being found guilty of any car crashes that take place in their field of vision? After all, everyone walking down the street knows that not just one but many people are driving where they are "causing a distraction". Tell me, if you think you (or your textbooks on law) can, what's the difference?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Anyway, you people are really weak on your liability issues. Yes, he did have a choice to read or not read the text messages, but that is only part of the issue.

Every case has more than one "part of the issue". Doesn't mean you go around looking for people to punish just for the heck of it, which I'm sorry, that's exactly what I think you're doing when you want to punish one person for another person's crime/actions.

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by Fox Terrier

In 2010, I bought my very first NEW car. I was 58 years old at the time; always had used beat-up cars and I was finally able to buy a new car!

I had about one thousand miles on the car when a woman pulled out in front of me from a stop sign and totalled my car. She just couldn't be bothered to wipe the condensation from her driver's side window. She couldn't see out of it; didn't even bother to lower the window to see if any traffic was on the road. Was I pissed? You bet! That was DUMB of her. Doing something STUPID that causes an accident was the basis for my anger.

Texting while driving is dumb and stupid. Driving while not being able to see out the windows is dumb and stupid.

You show me statistics on how many accidents are caused by people changing a radio station in their car, or by the driver talking with a passenger...

My point wasn't that one did or did not happen more often than the other. My point was that we already have PLENTY Of laws on the books about distracted driving and reckless driving. Driving when you can't see clearly falls under the "reckless driving", so does texting while drive (if you're actually driving recklessly while texting). So why do we have to put in yet another law, when there are plenty that cover texting or cell phone use?

There are plenty of people who CAN use their cell phones without driving dangerously. Why should they suddenly become criminals because other people can't drive and chew gum at the same time?