"MountainCommand" (MountainCommand)
09/01/2013 at 19:22 • Filed to: dwt
0
17|
"MountainCommand" (MountainCommand)
09/01/2013 at 19:22 • Filed to: dwt | 0
| 17 |
How is this logically correct. According to their ruling logic, shouldnt anyone who knew about someone who had too much to drink then drove home, be liable for their actions as well? "A New Jersey appeals court ruled on Tuesday that a person who knowingly sends a text to a driver can share liability if the driver causes an accident." (sorry if repost, but i just read about this).
"Disagreeing with a lower court, a panel of judges found that when a motorist is texting while driving and causes an accident, the person who was exchanging messages with the driver can also be liable for negligence"
" "When the sender knows that the text will reach the driver while operating a vehicle, the sender has a relationship to the public who use the roadways similar to that of a passenger physically present in the vehicle,” wrote the court"
How am I responsible for someone elses actions! Its their decision to look and use a phone. NOT MINE. Even if i know they are in the car, i will send them a message. Most of the time, there is a reason i would text someone who is driving, i.e. to alert them of any immediate situations. I dont expect a reply, but it is solely their decision to do so. Its not my choice.
And they also make a dangerous conclusion that now passengers in vehicles can be responsible for a drivers actions. Look closely how the court worded their statement. If im not driving, operating the vehicle, how would any passenger be responsible for the direct actions of the driver!
This is friken insane. Is anyone else out their scared about this decision? Honestly, this could seriously be damaging. All it takes is a prosecutor with a few swift words, and any text you sent, knowingly, or unknowingly, could link you to whatever the driver did.
I really want to move out of this state now. It keeps getting worse and worse.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/27…
. .
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 19:33 |
|
I actually prefer to text anyone who's driving, rather then call them. This way they will read the message after they arrive to their destination and immediatelly know what I want. It's far less dangerous than calling and making them pick up the phone while driving.
|
MountainCommand
> . .
09/01/2013 at 19:38 |
|
Bingo! Plus then they can read it when they get the chance, at a light, stop, or something else. Its at their discretion.
|
. .
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 19:45 |
|
Also, thinking about it, how would they prove that you knew that certain person was driving while you texted them? Unless they state it in their texts it's going to be nearly impossible.
|
MountainCommand
> . .
09/01/2013 at 19:54 |
|
"the sender would be liable only if the person had a “special reason” to know the driver was on the road and would read the messages."
"Special reason". Vague language like that gives them free reign. How this shi* flies is beyond me.
Well, since police can now take and search your phone at the scene of an accident
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tec…
Seems like they got it all figured out how they are gonna make it stick to you.
That is by far the scariest, and most despicable ruling that has been made in my opinion. No warrant at all.
|
. .
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 19:57 |
|
Honestly, as a 4th year law student I can safely say that this is the most retarded modern bit of legislation I've seen.
While operating within the bounds of criminal law you absolutely CANNOT rely on vague descriptions like 'special' reason. Regulations in that branch of law should be the most precise of all.
Shit like this makes me glad that I don't live in a country with a common law system.
TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts.
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 19:58 |
|
They need a Super express from Yardly, PA to New York so I don't have to live in Jersey any more.
|
MountainCommand
> . .
09/01/2013 at 20:01 |
|
You see, this is jersey after all.
Absurd. Astonishingly absurd.
|
. .
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 20:08 |
|
It's utterly unbelieveable on two levels. First, there's the utterly ludicrous premise that you may be responsible for something that's entirely outside of your area of influence (I would really like to know which of the commonly accepted theories of guilt they applied here), but then there's also the absolutely inexcusable way in which the verdict has been phrased. My mind is absolutely blown, because this is something that should never, ever occur within a developed legal system.
|
MountainCommand
> . .
09/01/2013 at 20:17 |
|
Exactly. So us civilians can now be blamed for others actions, how about the legislators, shouldnt they be to blame for something as well? Oh wait, they are exempt from everything they create... Feel good legislation at its best.
You know these NJ judges arent stupid. They know how to word it so the general public thinks they are saying something oh so important, when in reality, its just a vague generalization that gives them reach far beyond their wingspan.
The problem is we think logically, and based on facts. They, they.... I dont even know what you have to smoke to think like them.
Clown Shoe Pilot
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 22:57 |
|
prepend every text message with "I hope you're not driving - " and be done with it.
or, just don't text
bhardoin
> MountainCommand
09/01/2013 at 23:17 |
|
I'm gonna take what is almost definitely the opinion opposing the consensus here, but let me try at least explain my rationale. Hopefully it'll add new perspective, rather than just pissing everyone off.
The quote you have says "when the sender knows that the text will reach the driver while operating a vehicle." To me, that seems extreme. But, if the legalese was changed to "when the sender knows that the text will be read by a driver operating a motor vehicle," I would be perfectly fine with it. Just because you're not the one reading the text at a shitty moment in time doesn't mean you're not at all liable for the consequences.
I think the dividing line is if you can be reasonably certain that the text you send will end up endangering someone else on the road. Because if you can be relatively certain that the text you send will be read by someone behind the wheel, you can also be relatively certain that you're putting other people in harm's way unnecessarily. In my mind, it feels similar to someone selling drugs that he knows people will use - sure, the dealer isn't taking drugs and endangering others, but he is enabling a crime. Same with someone providing a gun to someone that is almost certainly about to commit a crime. It's not that you gave him the gun and he happened to kill someone with it, it's that you had a reasonable expectation that your actions endangered others.
Enginerrrrrrrrr
> bhardoin
09/01/2013 at 23:43 |
|
Yeah sure there is some logic to it, but as MountainCommand noted, a person who sees another drinking, say in a bar, then sees them leave, would be liable for them hitting someone while they are driving home drunk.
It's nonsense and a bit extreme. We need to keep driver's liable, we can't babysit everyone.
|
bhardoin
> Enginerrrrrrrrr
09/02/2013 at 02:16 |
|
Would you not tell that drunk guy at the bar that he's way too shitfaced to drive home? I know bouncers (a member of a party responsible for providing alcohol, much as texters are providing a distractions) where I am in CA will check up on people as they leave - the bars don't want to be held responsible in any way for DUIs.
Drivers are already liable, but that won't stop everyone. This won't stop everyone either, but it at least adds more (in my opinion reasonable) accountability for everyone at fault. Its just another incentive not to participate in text-driving.
|
bhardoin
> Enginerrrrrrrrr
09/02/2013 at 02:25 |
|
Also (I added this as a second response because it's a departure from the main discussion) I think you misused the word "babysit" or it means something different to you; either way I kinda want to clear this up because it's a pet peeve of mine.
To me, babysitting is when someone is protected from themself. But the damage from distracted driving is not limited to the distracted driver, it kills/injures/causesharm to others that have no control over the situation. Its Mills' harm principle - once you infringe on the lives of others, it is no longer babysitting.
|
Enginerrrrrrrrr
> bhardoin
09/02/2013 at 02:38 |
|
No, I meant the word in the same way you did.
And yes, driving also puts everyone else at risk as well. I just think the texting thing is too variable. If you see someone in the bar, you are actually witnessing them make a bad decision. If they are going to enact this law, then why don't they enact a law where everyone in the vicinity of a drunk person at a bar is liable? They have more power to stop a person from driving dangerously than someone who sends a text. I am actually glad that bars have bouncers that stop these people, unfortunately I think Cali is one of the few states who does this.
Back to texting: I send messages to my friends to not text me while they are driving, but would that make me liable if they got into an accident by reading my text? Obviously I have not read the law, but with how often these things are happening, it seems like people who were not intending harm could be held liable of something they had no control over. At what point does the person know the other is driving? Just because they say "I am coming over" or something, doesn't mean the other thinks they are in the car at that point. This is my main point, basing whether someone is guilty or not by the language in a text is just asking for issues to arise.
|
bhardoin
> Enginerrrrrrrrr
09/02/2013 at 11:43 |
|
I think this harks back to issue I tried to explain in my original post, but I did a poor job apparently.
I think it really has to do with the texter's understanding of the situation. If you send a text to a friend, in most cases you can expect them not to be driving. You have no control or responsibility for the situation. You shouldn't be liable. But I've ended conversations with friends because I got texts from them that said, "Lol, yeah, I'm driving right now, traffic's a bitch." If I carry on that conversation, does that not make me an accessory to that crime? That seems reasonable to me.
Granted, most of the time, you won't be able to prove this in court, and I'd imagine the state wouldn't even bother to prosecute it. But (I haven't read the law, I'm only voicing my opinion on what a good law should be) a law like this at least gives the state the option to prosecute cases that are more clear cut or more egregious.
For the bar analogy: the reasons bartenders and bouncers check and patrons don't is because the patrons aren't supplying the alcohol. They're a third party that only views the interaction, and doesn't have any reasonable say or leverage on either party. I guess, to carry the analogy on, it would be like if Bill was texting Bob while Bob was driving, and Jim was in the same room as Bill. Bill and Bob are liable, Jim doesn't have any real influence on what the other two are doing, even though he knows its happening.
|
MountainCommand
> Clown Shoe Pilot
09/02/2013 at 11:50 |
|
ill set that as my signature. good call.