| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 124853 | 2012-05-23 15:06:00 | Text SENDER Liability Too? | SurferJoe46 (51) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1276928 | 2012-05-24 05:00:00 | Agreed inphinity, where does it stop... | Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1276929 | 2012-05-24 05:25:00 | I agree with those who put the sole blame on the driver. When he read the txt he made a choice in poor judgement. If my phone rings or beeps while I'm driving I either ignore it or pull over to deal with it. I will read a txt quickly at the lights or while stuck in traffic but not while moving and certainly not around other traffic. | dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1276930 | 2012-05-24 14:20:00 | ^^ There's a note of credibility! That's the answer - the choice was the driver's. | SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1276931 | 2012-05-24 15:41:00 | Got a little more insight this AM . It seems there is the possibility that the girl on the other end of the texting, 'might have known' (her words) that her boyfriend was driving . This makes her an 'Accessory Before The Fact' and of course, it opens her up to litigation . It creates a co-culpability factor here and then both she (or her parents if she's a non-emancipated child) and the boyfriend's insurance carriers both stand up as responsible . True - that answering a phone call or a text is the option of the driver, but having said what she did to the police: "I might have known he was driving" opens a new door to non-separable concomitant liability (underscore mine) . Since the US does not have a national medical insurance nor a fund that people can attach for damages to themselves at the hands of others, then insurance companies are the goat that needs to pay for these acts . 'Victims of crimes compensation' acts are few and far between and are certainly NOT on a Federal level, although the Liberal States like California have that law on the books . But California is also a Torte Law State, and that opens several volumes of law interpretation . In a non-socialized medicine country (like the US), the 'requirements of passage' (in needing liability and medical insurance for THE OTHER PARTY) for such a heinous happenstance unfortunately falls upon those who 1) can afford the higher coverage 2) those who are at work and therefor covered by an employer's insurance carrier 3) are on a welfare program in the first place and are basically non-responsible position where they have no assets that can be attached nor any income that is garnish-able for payment to others that are so injured by their actions . It's nice that in some countries (NZ?) that liabilities and ascribments to liabilities can be adjudicated without attorneys, but going to the miscreant's door and popping them in the nose, shooting their dog and burning their crops won't solve huge medical bills . Ergo: insurance companies and attorneys flourish . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1276932 | 2012-05-27 05:52:00 | The judge ruled that she couldn't be tried, as it was the receiver's responsibility to be in a safe place while checking txts. | Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1276933 | 2012-05-27 06:06:00 | Yeah - I saw that. They were just looking for another deep pocket. | SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1276934 | 2012-05-27 09:16:00 | I had a guy who worked for me whilst driving could use his phone, eat a pie, drink a coke, write something down, put on indicators, yell road rage (as you do) all at the same time. This is called multi-tasking. Did he not get time off for smoko? |
Bobh (5192) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||