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.
what nonsense.
If I'm distracted by a woman in a short skirt walking curbside and cause an accident as a result, is the woman culpable too?
Cell phone texting is viewed differently because there is developing a clear record of it contributing to car wrecks vs hot women contributing to them.
I remember back in the early 90's there was woman in Florida who wanted to start a hot dog stand while wearing a g-string bikini. She was wearing the bikini as an attention grabber for her business. As far as I know no wrecks were caused by her distracting drivers but if some had happened I'd bet those on the recieving end of those wrecks would have looked into the possibility of sueing her.
who said big government...banning something is not big government
and btw...since driving is a STATE PRIVIGEDGE..banning cellphones outright in cars would be very easy to do...
Hello? The thread topic has nothing to do with banning/not banning an activity; rather, only if the girl the driver was texting should be a liable as a party to his accident.
I think they should go for it but realistically it's the jerk's fault who felt compelled to answer the message while he was driving and with all of those messages, he should dump her anyway because if that isn't being a pain in the azz girlfriend I don't know what is.
However, the couple suing her could be trying to make a point...maybe putting the fear of god into those people who DO text and drive. I wonder if some people even now, before the trial, will take a moment to analyze whether they REALLY want to look at that text message they just got while driving (or answer it).
Clearly, something has to be done about this new problem. I would be uber pissed if I had an accident and wrecked my car (or worse) because the other person was talking/texting while driving.
Would you be more or less pissed than if they were changing the station on the radio? Or more or less pissed if they were talking to the person in their passenger seat? Or more or less pissed if they were just really bad drivers?
Why would the reason behind their bad driving make a difference in how you felt about the accident?
The driver did not need to respond immediately did he?
Right nobody made the guy answer the text. Money hungry attorneys I'm sick of em. She was electronically there? LOL. So was everybody in his contact list.
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.
Cell phone texting is viewed differently because there is developing a clear record of it contributing to car wrecks vs hot women contributing to them.
I remember back in the early 90's there was woman in Florida who wanted to start a hot dog stand while wearing a g-string bikini. She was wearing the bikini as an attention grabber for her business. As far as I know no wrecks were caused by her distracting drivers but if some had happened I'd bet those on the recieving end of those wrecks would have looked into the possibility of sueing her.
I guess we should sue the lottery for all the "distracting" billboards put up around town. Hell sue every business who puts up a sign that possibly could distract a driver. Who can we sue for rain or a fly buzzing around while your driving? I'm sure somebody is working on that one. Maybe sue the state for not putting up a bubble dome around it to stop that distracting weather?
It is the new boogeyman. If there is a wreck and a cell phone is on the person then by gosh that is the cause seems to be the new mantra. Feds are looking to hold back trans money from states who don't ban cell phones in cars. So it will be back to just bad drivers causing wrecks I guess.
Never going to happen. Well, it might if someone is LITERALLY trying to make a federal case out of something, but it won't go anywhere. Having the freedom to sue anyone for anythink makes for some interesting discussions on forums but is really doing a disservice to our society as a whole. Especially when the people who aren't (how to put this..) up to par in the smarts department, get ahold of an idea and run with it as it. We've all seen it. I'm seeing it now. Some folks just can't think logically.
That being said... this is America where Mcdonalds was sued for an idiot spilling her HOT coffee on herself and she won. SOOOOO.... not only is it possible that some idiot judge will allow the woman to be sued, a bunch of idiot jurors could be placed on the trial and they could award the plantiffs big money!
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.
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.
pay attention to the thread topic!
