Ah, I didn't understand that. Thanks.
Puts a different light on it I guess, but still incredulous about this story in general.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Found Not Responsible in Fatal Car Crash Involving Distracted Driver Using FaceTime
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah, I didn't understand that. Thanks.
Puts a different light on it I guess, but still incredulous about this story in general.
No offence but is the US of America turning into a nation of imbeciles?
I think people like you are the biggest problem. Ignorance tends to be an even bigger problem. You don't carry a phone while you drive, you don't answer it or touch it at all, I seriously doubt that. What about when you walk, do you think it's any safer for you to be talking or using the phone while you walk?
Mike
The fault of the vehicle crash lies solely with the driver. The lawsuit should only be directed against the driver as he is responsible and should held accountable for his actions.
No, more like a nanny country and taking away blame and accountability from the individual and redirecting it towards the objects instead.
Actually, it was not that unreasonable, despite how it gets framed. This case is often presented as "middle age lady buys coffee at McD's drive through, puts between legs and gets burned as she drives off." If you look into the facts the truth is quite different.
1. McD's knew temperatures were unsafe but they decided to continue to serve it at temperatures that were unsafe to drink. McD's already had over 700 reported cases of burns from their coffee
2. Despite what people often say, she was not driving, but a passenger in a stopped vehicle when she got burned.
3. Her original request was for McD's to cover her hospital costs, when they said no she sued.
There are many frivolous lawsuits, but in this case McD's acted with callous disregard for the safety of its customers by knowingly serving coffee at temperatures that were unfit to drink and dangerous.
The suit against Apple, however was frivolous.
Your coffee example is just as stupid. I may even call it retarded. 700 cases of idiots.
Apparently I missed the first sentence saying the iPhone user wasn’t the father of the child that died. 
Last edited:
Score one for common sense.
[doublepost=1545085763][/doublepost]
You do realize the father in the article is the victim, not the phone user. He's also dead. If you're referring to the father of the deceased man, I'm curious what "responsibility" he needs to take action for when he wasn't even involved in the accident.
[doublepost=1545085763][/doublepost]
You do realize the father in the article is the victim, not the phone user. He's also dead. If you're referring to the father of the deceased man, I'm curious what "responsibility" he needs to take action for when he wasn't even involved in the accident.
Yes. Look at the US government highest as an example.
The fact that we are even debating this just shows how out of touch with reality some people are.
Fine. I find it unreasonable for a restaurant to serve coffee at a temperature so hot that if you drink it straight away you'd get third degree burns. I prefer mine to be drinkable without injury. YMMV. HAND.
So when you purchase your HOT beverage wait 2 minutes, but people complain before using basic brain functions. Sorry, but this is beyond stupid.
Yep, a few of these and it would stop happening. But no, there are a lot of people that do NOT want any personal responsibility.
Why do they need data from his iPhone for trial? Was he driving during the crash? That's the fact at issue.
Products need warnings that say: If you are too stupid to use this. Don't!
I think I am going to sue Breyers Ice Cream for my overweight self, there is no warning on the packaging that says I will get fat by eating it.
I think I am going to sue Breyers Ice Cream for my overweight self, there is no warning on the packaging that says I will get fat by eating it.
Seriously, if there are f**kin' deer that show up in the middle of Mercer St in Seattle, we've got other issues to worry about.
"The family, said the court, could not establish that the design of the iPhone was the cause of the injuries suffered."
lol... this family really is trying hard to get off the hook here.
The driver was at fault, cos they decided to use Facetime... No one forced him to. He could have payed attention to the road it "he wanted to" but he decide don his own actions.
It would be like blaming Apple for every single time u crashed your cash when texting. The numbers would be enormous.
lol... this family really is trying hard to get off the hook here.
The driver was at fault, cos they decided to use Facetime... No one forced him to. He could have payed attention to the road it "he wanted to" but he decide don his own actions.
It would be like blaming Apple for every single time u crashed your cash when texting. The numbers would be enormous.
Last edited:
So glad this guy didn't win. Would set a dangerous precedent which could stifle innovation. Why? No company would ever want to put safety measures into development if they could be sued for not implementing them sooner. That would be insanity, but I suppose not out of place in the world today.
And yes, my daughter will be 5 in a couple months. I love her more than life itself. This guy is just a greedy idiot.
Imagine wanting a fat payday at the expense of your dead child.
And yes, my daughter will be 5 in a couple months. I love her more than life itself. This guy is just a greedy idiot.
Apple already has safety measures... 'Do Not Disturb' but unfortunately its 'Off'' by default, The only way you could really automatically force this on is when it senses the phone is connected to the car. then DND would automatically switch on.
If Apple did that, it would at least 'help' in some part. but not everyone connects their phone to their car... you wouldn't solve the problem.. only handling it better. Currently, its only manual switch, which is basically the worse case, as that is only relying on the user.