New Jersey court sets precedent for distracted driving texts

[EarlJibbs]

Wow. Don't do anything, or else you may be implicated in someone elses mistakes. Thoughts?

New Jersey court sets precedent for distracted driving texts

New Jersey court sets precedent for distracted driving texts | ksl.com

[Bini]

I have mixed feelings on this.

If you have a friend or loved one that you know can't resist answering a text message while they're operating a vehicle -- don't send a text message -- it's really that simple. I would feel awful if I sent a text message to someone that I know will check it and respond to it while driving, and ultimately wrecking, severely injuring or killing someone else or themselves. So that's food for thought for everyone to consider.

[beefche]

Oh my gosh. So now I have to know the driving habits of all my friends and family?

[Bini]

Oh my gosh. So now I have to know the driving habits of all my friends and family?

The ones that you do know, that's what I'd consider. If I have a teenager that I know is going to respond to texts while driving, I either (a) don't give them a phone or (b) don't text them.

[estradling75]

The kicker is... that for you to get in trouble they have to prove that you knew the person was driving and would try to respond.

The simple fact that you text them and they happened to be driving is not enough

[Wingnut]

This is ridiculous.

[Bini]

The kicker is... that for you to get in trouble they have to prove that you knew the person was driving and would try to respond.

The simple fact that you text them and they happened to be driving is not enough

I agree with this.

Unless during your texts it says something like: LOL im driving

Might be screwed then.

Still, if I knew I was partly responsible for an accident because I continued to text back and forth with someone KNOWING they were operating a vehicle -- I wouldn't want that on my conscience.

[Wingnut]

The kicker is... that for you to get in trouble they have to prove that you knew the person was driving and would try to respond.

The simple fact that you text them and they happened to be driving is not enough

Unless they can invent a reason that you might have known.

[Jenamarie]

The kicker is... that for you to get in trouble they have to prove that you knew the person was driving and would try to respond.

The simple fact that you text them and they happened to be driving is not enough

Right. The conversation would almost HAVE to be: "Hey, what are you doing?" "Driving" [texting continues] [accident ensues]

[estradling75]

I find the idea that a third party leaving what is basically a message can be legally held responsible for the primary party poor judgment in choosing to respond to that message to be questionable at best.

But apparently New Jersey thinks otherwise, and I am interested in seeing how it will play out...

As for them inventing stuff up... Sure I suppose they can. But whatever they get will have to be enough to convince a jury that you should be accountable for it...

[Leah]

This is ridiculous.

I agree. Very ridiculous.

We are supposed to know at any and every given moment of the day who is driving? Really?

The responsibility lies on the driver. One of the reasons many of send texts instead of placing a phone call, is specifically so that the recipient can respond to it at a later time. If the recipient chooses to be an idiot, why is that the text sender's fault/responsibility? Is no one responsible for their own actions any more?

Is there a similar law that pertains to phone calls, or are they just targeting texts? If someone places a phone call not knowing that someone is on the road, is it the caller's fault/responsibility if the other person picks up the phone while driving?

How are we supposed to know each and every time we send a text or place a phone call, what the recipient is doing?

Ridiculous.

[EarlJibbs]

I text all the time while I drive. Fortunately for me I use Siri when I do. It will repeat my message after I say it so that I can proof it and everything.

I personally feel that even if you said something in your text like "lol I know ur driving, dont get in a wreck!" you shouldnt be held accountable for someone elses actions.

[mnn727]

So once again we transfer responsibility away from the person causing the problem. <<Shakes head>>

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY people! Is no one accountable for their actions anymore?

[Just_A_Guy]

A couple of observations:

1) It's worth noting that the text-sender in this case actually got off. The appellate court noted that it was hypothetically possible to hold someone like her liable, but also held that the plaintiffs hadn't met the proper burden in this particular case.

2) The court isn't technically transferring liability; it's just adding another person to collect from if/when the victim finds that the most proximate causor of his/her injuries is, as they say in the business, "judgment-proof". My guess (and this is only a guess) is that the driver here was uninsured, and that's why the victim went looking for deeper pockets.

[Wingnut]

1) It's worth noting that the text-sender in this case actually got off. The appellate court noted that it was hypothetically possible to hold someone like her liable, but also held that the plaintiffs hadn't met the proper burden in this particular case.

So this was something I noticed. The article said that because of this case, there was precedent. But there really wasn't, because it didn't happen. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

Technically, the precedent isn't what happens to the defendant; the precedent is the reasoning that the court uses in determining what happens to the defendant.

There's a well-known case in Constitutional Law where a long-reaching precedent was established in a footnote to the written opinion (the case was US v. Carolene Products).

[Wingnut]

Technically, the precedent isn't what happens to the defendant; the precedent is the reasoning that the court uses in determining what happens to the defendant.

There's a well-known case in Constitutional Law where a long-reaching precedent was established in a footnote to the written opinion (the case was US v. Carolene Products).

Ah, okay. I always thought precedent was established in outcomes or results. (I have a TV law degree. )

[Blackmarch]

Wow. Don't do anything, or else you may be implicated in someone elses mistakes. Thoughts?

New Jersey court sets precedent for distracted driving texts

New Jersey court sets precedent for distracted driving texts | ksl.com

I think that this has the potential to be good if they that can set some strict guidelines regarding proving the party that isn't driving was aware at the time that the other was driving at that time.

[Backroads]

I am pretty adamant about no texting while driving, but this is a stupid, stupid law. The fault lies with the distracted driver. That's it.

Further thoughts: this law rather stinks of the attempt to punish as many people as possible. And, on the sample case, why did the driver get off in the court?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Backroads

[Blackmarch]

I am pretty adamant about no texting while driving, but this is a stupid, stupid law. The fault lies with the distracted driver. That's it.

Further thoughts: this law rather stinks of the attempt to punish as many people as possible. And, on the sample case, why did the driver get off in the court?

ya if the driver gets off but the other person receives a more harsh penalty that is very stupid and unjust.. But I'm fine with charging other party up to and = to the driver's punishment if they were knowledgeable and willful participants in any activity that caused an accident (that includes texting).

[Backroads]

But I'm fine with charging other party up to and = to the driver's punishment if they were knowledgeable and willful participants in any activity that caused an accident (that includes texting).

Theoretically I'm fine with that, but how does one prove they were knowledgable and willful participants?

The driver purposefully chose to engage in distracted driving. She hit the motorcyclists. Why is she not punished just because her friend didn't know she was driving?

[Blackmarch]

Theoretically I'm fine with that, but how does one prove they were knowledgable and willful participants?

The driver purposefully chose to engage in distracted driving. She hit the motorcyclists. Why is she not punished just because her friend didn't know she was driving?

I'd imagine that most would not be charged because the surest way would have to be from the texts themselves- one party or the other would have to mention something about or relating to their driving at that moment. The harder more grey area would be defining what would count as good circumstantial evidence from witness testimony and etc.. Personally i'd just stick with the phone record bit

[ElectofGod]

Another freedom gone.