You can now be liable in NJ for texting someone you knew was driving at the time

[Dick Whitman]

So says a New Jersey court, if you texted someone and knew that that person was driving and was apt to become distracted by the text:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/remote_texter_can_be_held_liable_for_distracted_drivers_crash/?utm_source=maestro&sc_cid=130828AT&utm_campaign=weekly_email&utm_medium=email

 

[Vombatus]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

 

[Dick Whitman]

But if it saves one life, ok I guess.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KJIM]

How could it be proven that the sender knew the receiver was driving?

 

[Dick Whitman]

How could it be proven that the sender knew the receiver was driving?

"Did you know he was driving?"

"Yes."

 

[KJIM]

Means squat, though. Can't be proven.

A sender also has no control over when a person reads a text.

If I text someone directions to my house eight days before a party but someone accesses it on the way, am I at fault? It wasn't sent while driving.

 

[amraeder]

Saw something about this - maybe on cnn.com - and the thing that annoyed me is that even if I know you're driving I assume you're going to read it when you're not driving. For example, if I send you a text saying "Hey, can you make sure to get pasta sauce," it seems reasonable you won't look at that until you actually get to the store.

I'm trying to come up with a non-texting, analogous situation but failing. Closest I can come is - if I hand you a book as you get in the car, and you crash because you're dumb enough to read it while driving, I'm liable?

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'm trying to come up with a non-texting, analogous situation but failing. Closest I can come is - if I hand you a book as you get in the car, and you crash because you're dumb enough to read it while driving, I'm liable?

This would be a good example of why texting, a new technology, needs new regulations. The analogies don't work.

But this interpretation sounds like something that won't ever be used in real life. If I'm reading it right, it wasn't even used in this case.

 

[amraeder]

I'm trying to come up with a non-texting, analogous situation but failing. Closest I can come is - if I hand you a book as you get in the car, and you crash because you're dumb enough to read it while driving, I'm liable?

This would be a good example of why texting, a new technology, needs new regulations. The analogies don't work.

But this interpretation sounds like something that won't ever be used in real life. If I'm reading it right, it wasn't even used in this case.

Yeah, it wasn't used in the case - but only because (based on what I read on CNN haven't read this article) she sent 100s of texts a day and had no real knowledge of where the people where when she sent the texts.

 

[lcjjdnh]

How could it be proven that the sender knew the receiver was driving?

"Did you know he was driving?"

"Yes."

Moreover, this will be assessed by a standard of reasonableness. One can imagine that if you have been texting back and forth with someone---and they mention they're driving or recently left your house, etc.---it is reasonable for the person sending the text message to know that the person will continue reading the text messages you're sending. And I don't think this will be impossible to prove. The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

That said, for the same reason, the decision limits liability in some of the hypotheticals posited in this thread. Again, the standard is reasonableness. In order to be liable, the court said, the sender must know: a) that the recipient is driving; and 2) will read the text immediately. And the court noted that in order to meet the second prong of that test, the plaintiff would need to provide additional evidence beyond the fact that sender knew the recipient was driving---it said that a sender "should be able to assume that the recipient will read a text message only when it is safe and legal to do so, that is, when not operating a vehicle." So the hypothetical text messages about picking up pasta sauce would not make you liable, absent other circumstances.

 

[bigpern23]

I've made my feelings about texting while driving pretty clear on other threads, but this seems ridiculous.

I make an effort not to text someone if I know they are driving, but I think making it a crime is asinine. No matter how many text messages someone sends to a person who is driving, they are NEVER responsible for the driver's decision to pick up the phone. Only one person can make the decision to pick up the phone and read a text, and it is that person who is responsible for any consequences that may come as a result of that decision.

 

[outofplace]

I've made my feelings about texting while driving pretty clear on other threads, but this seems ridiculous.

I make an effort not to text someone if I know they are driving, but I think making it a crime is asinine. No matter how many text messages someone sends to a person who is driving, they are NEVER responsible for the driver's decision to pick up the phone. Only one person can make the decision to pick up the phone and read a text, and it is that person who is responsible for any consequences that may come as a result of that decision.

Well put.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I've made my feelings about texting while driving pretty clear on other threads, but this seems ridiculous.

I make an effort not to text someone if I know they are driving, but I think making it a crime is asinine. No matter how many text messages someone sends to a person who is driving, they are NEVER responsible for the driver's decision to pick up the phone. Only one person can make the decision to pick up the phone and read a text, and it is that person who is responsible for any consequences that may come as a result of that decision.

Read the article again, as it's not a crime to text someone if you know they are driving.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

Bingo. City, county and state governments and courts don't give a **** about saving lives. It's all about the revenue.

 

[lcjjdnh]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

Bingo. City, county and state governments and courts don't give a **** about saving lives. It's all about the revenue.

What on earth does this have to do with government revenue? It is a civil case between two private parties, which some of you are missing.

 

[User 11148]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

Bingo. City, county and state governments and courts don't give a **** about saving lives. It's all about the revenue.

What on earth does this have to do with government revenue? It is a civil case between two private parties, which some of you are missing.

When the board's doing the play-at-home version of Judge Wapner these things happen ...

 

[Armchair_QB]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

Bingo. City, county and state governments and courts don't give a **** about saving lives. It's all about the revenue.

What on earth does this have to do with government revenue? It is a civil case between two private parties, which some of you are missing.

This will be a fine-able offense at some point. Gotta keep the money rolling in.

 

[bigpern23]

I've made my feelings about texting while driving pretty clear on other threads, but this seems ridiculous.

I make an effort not to text someone if I know they are driving, but I think making someone liable for this is asinine. No matter how many text messages someone sends to a person who is driving, they are NEVER responsible for the driver's decision to pick up the phone. Only one person can make the decision to pick up the phone and read a text, and it is that person who is responsible for any consequences that may come as a result of that decision.

Read the article again, as it's not a crime to text someone if you know they are driving.

My mistake. Edited to reflect, but the point still stands.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

The article doesn't say what **** claims it says. The article says a texter can be held liable if said texter knows the person is reading the sent texts while driving, not that the texter sent the texts while knowing the other person is driving.

 

[Tarheel316]

I smell lawyers and judges.

It sounds like a reach, and just another reason why I never want to speak to the police beyond claiming the fifth about anything.

But if it saves one life, ok I guess. It sounds more like a way to assign blame and collect money from some other person or their insurance.

Bingo. City, county and state governments and courts don't give a **** about saving lives. It's all about the revenue.

What on earth does this have to do with government revenue? It is a civil case between two private parties, which some of you are missing.

This will be a fine-able offense at some point. Gotta keep the money rolling in.

It's always about the money.