Texting Someone Who is Driving - Now a Crime?

[Greenday]

On the way home from the lasek surgery place I was at, I was listening to NJ's main radio station and the last story I heard interested me. This guy was driving home from work and while doing so, was texting his girlfriend back and forth. At one point, he received a text and when he looked down to read it, he hit a man and a woman riding a motorcycle. Records show that they had over 60 texts in that conversation.

Now, as is right, he's being heavily fined and such for breaking the law. BUT, the couple also intends to sue the girlfriend for damages. Why? Because she knew her boyfriend was driving and was texting him anyway. They are saying because she intentionally was distracting him from his driving, she is just as guilty.

What do you guys think? Is it right that she gets hit with damages for this?

http://www.digtriad.com/news/article...-Texting-Crash

I personally don't think so. She wasn't the one driving. She didn't force him to answer. He chose to. He could have just ignored the texts. He could have told her that he wasn't going to talk while on the road. The blame is 100% on the driver.

[Andara Bledin]

If she was carrying on a text conversation while she was aware that he was driving, she does share some culpability.

Essentially, she was an accessory to the crime and deserves a share of the blame.

But they're suing her, not having her jailed; either way, nobody is making it a crime.

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

The onus is on him to not reply to her texts. If he had said, I'm driving, I'll talk to you later, then I would say she would have a small part of the blame but she wasn't holding a gun to his head to answer.

[Andara Bledin]

Oh, he definitely holds the lion's share of the blame, without question.

^-.-^

[powerboy]

I think that she should be accountable for her part in it.

But on the other hand, what if she didn't know that he was driving? What if the text you sent did not get to the other persons phone right then. What if it was a couple of hours later. I have had that happen. In one case of mine. I sent a text about 4 days earlier asking my buddy to bring boxes (we were helping a friends mother move). He got it about 4 days later, when him and I was hanging out and doing a radio show on blogtalkradio.com

[Andara Bledin]

In a case where you send a single text to someone without knowledge of their situation, or even a few back and forth, it shouldn't even be an issue.

However, in this case, they're operating on the probability of the person sending the texts being aware of the recipient's situation at the time the texts are being exchanged.

It should be noted, and I find it rather telling, that during a deposition, the girlfriend is quoted as saying, "This is what teenagers do." As if the Kubert's trauma and the loss of their left legs is just an unfortunate by-product of young adults existing as opposed to young people doing stupid shit that they know, intellectually, is dangerous.

Considering that at this point, about 1/4 of all accidents are related to cell phone use, it's pure ignorance and arrogance to think that using a cell phone while driving is even remotely acceptable.

It's noted in several articles that they traded over 60 texts that day. However, I haven't found a statement about when those texts were exchanged. If it turns out that this was the first after a significant gap, then she should not be held liable. If, however, this was part of an on-going conversation that they were having while he drove, I cannot see how she would not be aware of his situation and, thus, contributing to it.

Considering that the text records would be part of the discovery process, it isn't at all difficult to determine her awareness and whether or not she had any culpability as regards the timing of her texts to him.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

According toe NJ101.5, they were saying that she knew he was on his way home from work.

[Duelist925]

I don't think she should face any legal culpability--he's driving, thus it is his responsibility to drive safely. A simple "Let me text you at the light, or when I get home" Would have solved this.

I see it as somewhat like offering someone a shot. Is a bartender culpable if someone leaves their bar drunk and tries to drive home?


_______________


Edited after some further thought: If she knew he was driving, and kept sending text after text, much like Andara said, she should share some legal culpability. =/ thats more akin to a jackass in the passenger seat offering the driver a beer than my earlier bartender example.

[Shangri-laschild]

I've sent people texts before when I knew they were driving. I figured they'd be smart and answer them later. However I do know people who will answer texts at red lights only when the car is fully stopped or if they are infrequent enough and from someone important enough, may opt to pull over and answer rather than waiting. I don't know if it can be proven or not that she knew he was texting while actively driving.

If she did know, I'd see this along the same lines as knowing that a friend was drunk and lending them your car. If you know that he's going to answer your texts while he's driving and that he is currently driving, then I'd say there is at least partial responsibility for it. Just depends on how much she knew.

[Rapscallion]

It's a push to say someone sending the texts is culpable. They don't have to pass a licence test to drive the car, the driver does - and the core of that test (or at least it was for me) was that the driver is the one who makes the decisions. Not anyone else. The driver is responsible for everything they do.

Rapscallion

[Shangri-laschild]

There's also the distinction of legally responsible and morally/ethically responsible.

[Andara Bledin]

Remember, this is a civil case, not criminal.

It doesn't matter whether she was culpable in a criminal sense only that they can prove some degree of culpability in a general sense.

The timing and content of the texts should provide whatever evidence would be necessary to determine her responsibility for the accident or lack thereof.

^-.-^

[bara]

If she was spamming him texts, he had the option of putting the cell phone on silent.

I have to agree the fault is solely on the driver. The only way I could see her as having any sort of liability here is if she was in the car next to him distracting him.
I have made people put their phones away if I am giving them a ride, especially at night, if I feel that it creates a dangerous situation.

[bainsidhe]

If it turns out that this was the first after a significant gap, then she should not be held liable. If, however, this was part of an on-going conversation that they were having while he drove, I cannot see how she would not be aware of his situation and, thus, contributing to it.

How many texts before you're liable? Whether a single text or 60, it's still a distraction. If you're going to assign blame to the non-driver, it shouldn't matter how many messages were sent, because an accident still happened.

Here's another thought, does that mean cops will start ticketing people for texting when they aren't even driving? If I'm texting my brother and he gets pulled over and ticketed, do I get a ticket too?

And what if he were instead listening to controversial talk radio and got so upset or excited that he caused an accident? Talk radio is targeting drivers with their shows, so does that make them responsible? This is a slippery slope.

[Andara Bledin]

This is a slippery slope.

No, it's not. It doesn't even approach being one.

First, because this isn't a criminal case, so you don't have to worry about the man going after you. And second, because you have to prove forethought and at least some measure of intent.

If it was an ongoing conversation, then the girlfriend intended for the guy to be looking at his phone regularly while he was driving. There is no other method where he could get home and have a text conversation simultaneously. Yes, he could have (and should have) refrained, which is why he gets the lion's share of the blame. But that doesn't leave her blameless.

Talk radio is a nonsensical comparison; that is a completely one-sided, audible situation as opposed to a two-sided visual situation. The only think they have in common is... well, they don't really have anything in common.

^-.-^