Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not Apple's fault at all. This is 100% on the driver. This reminds me of a story around here where a local woman was awarded $4.6 million by a jury because her daughter picked up a needle in the Target parking lot and she got stuck with it after she swatted it out of her daughters hand.
These lawsuits are awful. What we need is harsher penalties. FaceTime guy probably won't get the punishment he deserves. We need better laws, not frivolous suits. It's not Apple's responsibility, it's ours as consumers.
While the suit is without merit, I don't consider the plaintiffs to be "idiots" or any of the other names that some of the posters in this topic used. Let's have a little compassion here. These parents lost their child, ok? A precious 5 year old girl simply sitting in her booster seat was killed due to a reckless, ******* of a driver that felt it was SO damn important to facetime. He is 100% at fault here. But that doesn't make these people money chasers or trying to cash in on their child's death. I bet you they'd want to have their child back and screw any money. They're hurt and what do many people do when they're hurt? They lash out in the courts, even if the target is misguided. We can debate whether this is right or wrong but it doesn't mean that the hurt parties are after a buck because life is worth far more than money to most normal people.
If this wasn't about money, then name ONE REASON as to why apple is the appropriate defendant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lockdev
I think everyone here is missing the point.
Apple took out a ridiculously abstract patent that prevented anyone else from implementing this kind of saftey technology. They themselves were sitting on the patent and didn't do anything with it.
Had other phone makers implemented a safety feature that locks distracting apps like facetime while driving, Apple would have had to follow suit.
That is the point of this lawsuit.
By having the technology patent and refusing to use it, or license it freely in the name of safety, they put peoples' lives at risk.
Look at Volvo. They patented the seat belt, then freely released it in the name of safety. Just about every car manufacturer used it after that, and it has saved countless lives.
WTH are you talking about?
You think there is a patent for an app that knows where in the vehicle someone is sitting???
They are not suing because there is a way to identify who is driving, they are suing because they think this app should be blocked when a phone is moving at highway speeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas
why sue only Apple? sue the makers of the mirrors, stereo or anything that can distract the driver while driving
Yeah, this is as stupid as suing the bullet manufacturer when someone gets shot. This is suing the firework maker when an idiot shoots a roman candle into someone's face. This is suing Trump because someone breaks the law to sneak to the top of his building then falls off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jandrew5
Not Apple's fault at all. This is 100% on the driver. This reminds me of a story around here where a local woman was awarded $4.6 million by a jury because her daughter picked up a needle in the Target parking lot and she got stuck with it after she swatted it out of her daughters hand.
These lawsuits are awful. What we need is harsher penalties. FaceTime guy probably won't get the punishment he deserves. We need better laws, not frivolous suits. It's not Apple's responsibility, it's ours as consumers.
I remember that story. I'm sure that's one of the many ridiculous lawsuits that feeds the greed of people like this.
I remember that story. I'm sure that's one of the many ridiculous lawsuits that feeds the greed of people like this.
The bigger story is it demonstrates a flaw in the legal system. The reason these suits are filed is there is no penalty for filing a frivolous suit You can essentially give it a try. The lawyers lose nothing because they get paid regardless of the judgement. The plaintiffs lose nothing because they know Apple will likely settle out of court to avoid an expensive trial. It is a form of extortion. The big companies have to pay off the local mafia hoods (the lawyers and their plaintiffs) as it is cheaper to pay for protection (settling out of court) than having your store mysteriously vandalized later (paying the legal expenses for a lengthy trial).
In Europe, they have a loser pays system. This prevents frivolous suits from being filed. Only legitimate suits are filed because they need susbtantial merit to win otherwise the plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the defendents' legal fees. It truly prevents abuse. Lawyers in the United States don't want to see a system like that implemented because it would truly cut into their income. Lawyers argue that poor plaintiffs would not get a fair trial. That is their argument. I disagree. If the payoff is big and the plaintiff has a legitimate case, the lawyers would front the cost of the legal fees in exchange for a bigger percent of the awards. But lawyers wouldn't take on cases like this that have no real chance of winning if they would be responsible for paying for the defendant's legal fees if they lost.
The bigger story is it demonstrates a flaw in the legal system. The reason these suits are filed is there is no penalty for filing a frivolous suit You can essentially give it a try. The lawyers lose nothing because they get paid regardless of the judgement. The plaintiffs lose nothing because they know Apple will likely settle out of court to avoid an expensive trial. It is a form of extortion. The big companies have to pay off the local mafia hoods (the lawyers and their plaintiffs) as it is cheaper to pay for protection (settling out of court) than having your store mysteriously vandalized later (paying the legal expenses for a lengthy trial).
In Europe, they have a loser pays system. This prevents frivolous suits from being filed. Only legitimate suits are filed because they need susbtantial merit to win otherwise the plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the defendents' legal fees. It truly prevents abuse. Lawyers in the United States don't want to see a system like that implemented because it would truly cut into their income. Lawyers argue that poor plaintiffs would not get a fair trial. That is their argument. I disagree. If the payoff is big and the plaintiff has a legitimate case, the lawyers would front the cost of the legal fees in exchange for a bigger percent of the awards. But lawyers wouldn't take on cases like this that have no real chance of winning if they would be responsible for paying for the defendant's legal fees if they lost.
Thanks to the cinnemark/batman thread, I learned that some states do allow that.
The bigger story is it demonstrates a flaw in the legal system. The reason these suits are filed is there is no penalty for filing a frivolous suit You can essentially give it a try. The lawyers lose nothing because they get paid regardless of the judgement. The plaintiffs lose nothing because they know Apple will likely settle out of court to avoid an expensive trial. It is a form of extortion. The big companies have to pay off the local mafia hoods (the lawyers and their plaintiffs) as it is cheaper to pay for protection (settling out of court) than having your store mysteriously vandalized later (paying the legal expenses for a lengthy trial).
In Europe, they have a loser pays system. This prevents frivolous suits from being filed. Only legitimate suits are filed because they need susbtantial merit to win otherwise the plaintiff is required to pay the full amount of the defendents' legal fees. It truly prevents abuse. Lawyers in the United States don't want to see a system like that implemented because it would truly cut into their income. Lawyers argue that poor plaintiffs would not get a fair trial. That is their argument. I disagree. If the payoff is big and the plaintiff has a legitimate case, the lawyers would front the cost of the legal fees in exchange for a bigger percent of the awards. But lawyers wouldn't take on cases like this that have no real chance of winning if they would be responsible for paying for the defendant's legal fees if they lost.
So many things incorrect about this post. But I'll start with the basic:
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11
Quote:
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.
(2) Motion for Sanctions. A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets. If warranted, the court may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred for the motion.
(3) On the Court's Initiative. On its own, the court may order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11(b).
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.
(5) Limitations on Monetary Sanctions. The court must not impose a monetary sanction:
(A) against a represented party for violating Rule 11(b)(2); or
(B) on its own, unless it issued the show-cause order under Rule 11(c)(3) before voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims made by or against the party that is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned.
(6) Requirements for an Order. An order imposing a sanction must describe the sanctioned conduct and explain the basis for the sanction.
Second, you say "loser" pays, only 1.8% of cases go to trial. That means in the 98.2% of cases where they didn't there is usually a voluntary dismissal, summary judgment, or settlement. Of that 98.2% of non tried cases, 97% are settled. No winner no loser. Your idea harms Plaintiffs and solves nothing.
Third, in a contingency arrangement, which makes up the bulk of Plaintiff's Lawyers' payment arrangements, the lawyer often loses money where nothing is won because of the cost of court fees (the cost of simply filing the suit in a State Trial Court can run well over $500).
What would actually fix this? Make the pleading requirements harder. And the Supreme Court already did that in Iqbal, but that would an actual solution.
Another? Preliminary Expert affidavits like those required in most states for Medical Malpractice/Professional Negligence. Experts are expensive which causes many to have second thoughts.
They have the technology to block phones from being used by the driver only?
I would think they are keeping this technology from being used because it could easily lead to lawsuits were people were not able to use their phone in an emergency situation. It is easy for them to claim personal responsibility when some idiot uses the phone incorrectly. But when someone is involved in a road rage incident and cannot call for help? That is much easier to put the blame on Apple for blocking the phone's ability to work.
That is a very weak argument.
Facetime is not the same as making a hands-free phone call, or even a phone call in general.
Too many people are dying in car accidents due to straight selfish stupidity.
Distracting apps, such as facetime, texting, facebook, etc have no place in a moving car.
If saving thousands of lives a year means passengers have to stop using apps that a driver could possibly be distracted by, then so be it.
Who is really to blame here is our weak laws on distracted driving.
We throw drunk drivers in jail for putting lives at risk. We should start doing the same to people who drive while texting or cruising facebook/tender/instagram/etc.
So emergencies never happen when in a moving vehicle? I would rather put the blame on people who can't use their phone responsibly and not take away my ability to call for help if needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
