Apple Found Not Responsible in Fatal Car Crash Involving Distracted Driver Using FaceTime

[macpeach55]

I don’t feel sorry at all for the father. I would if he would accept responsibility for his actions. Instead he tried to make a quick buck from Apple.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

It’s sad that the child ends up having the worst fate here.

Read
The
Article
Then you will realise that you just said that you don't feel sorry for a Father that just lost his Daughter through no fault of his own.
The Father suing Apple is the action of a greedy simpleton listening to equally greedy lawyers, and totally wrong, but that is another matter & he should feel ashamed of that.

 

[LeeW]

Here we have a prime example of a world gone mad that you need a warning or safety feature to replace common sense. Even if there was a 'safety' feature that could be enabled when driving, would he have used it? Turned it back off to make the call?

 

[Seanm87]

Do you know what I really hate? People that can’t take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[apolloa]

Whilst Apple is not liable in this case, they along with car manufactures should do more to stop this thing happening, because humans are incredibly thick and selfish and will talk with a phone glued to the side of their head, text, video chat whilst driving a 1.5 ton machine at 40 MPH plus with zero thought of the consequences!

They need to make of for the lack of any intelligence shown by these idiots behind the wheel. For they are many.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

Imagine losing your 5 year old child.

And immediately thinking “Sweet!!!! I bet I can get some mad loot out of this situation!!!”?
Nope. Sorry.
I literally can’t even begin to imagine that.
If you or anyone that upvoted you can- I feel VERY sickened by you & how you’d use the death of your toddler as an opportunistic cash grab.
That’s fundamentally appalling to me.

 

[Tech198]

Do you know what I really hate? People that can’t take responsibility for their own actions.

True, but companies feel they must step in, to force us to ... All in the name of transiting to "take responsibility for own actions"

If people use DND often enough, they will get used to relying on themselves more instead of a feature. Apple hopes we don't, because then the feature would become useless.

 

[jav6454]

I agree but it would eliminate the need for frivolous lawsuits. People just never learn, somethings have to be forced upon them before learning.

No, just no. A corporation shouldn’t have yo baby sit your recklessness. Hence, no corporation is liable for reckless usage of anything they make.

 

[v3rlon]

Or blaming Blue Bonnet for heart attacks due to excess butter consumption.

more like blaming the maker of the packaging for Blue Bonnet for the heart attacks because the cholesterol information wasn't lit well enough.

 

[I7guy]

Whilst Apple is liable in this case, they along with car manufactures should do more to stop this thing happening, because humans are incredibly thick and selfish and will talk with a phone glued to the side of their head, text, video chat whilst driving a 1.5 ton machine at 40 MPH plus with zero thought of the consequences!

They need to make of for the lack of any intelligence shown by these idiots behind the wheel. For they are many.

What about the following activities that I've seen people do on the road? Reading the newpapers? Blame the NYT. Eating a hamburger? Sue MacDonalds? Putting on eye makeup? Sue Sephora? Shaving? Sue Norelco?

 

[techwhiz]

In no state of mind is a company that makes a device guilty for the reckless use of the devices it sells. Can you sue a weapons manufacturer because someone used a gun to kill your daughter? Can you sue Ford if an Explorer is used to run over your daughter? The answer to all of these is no. Regardless of how painful or devastating the outcome is. The person using said device (or vehicle) is liable due to reckless usage (or simple ignorance of proper usage).
[doublepost=1545079542][/doublepost]
You can still cause a collision while trying to change your radio or adjusting temperature settings. Should a car manufacturer be liable because you were distracted? No.

Those disabling features are nice to have, but they don't mean a manufacturer is liable for the recklessness of people.

Exactly.
You cannot sue a manufacturer because someone kills someone with their product.
You can only sue a manufacturer is itself negligent in the manufacturing of the product. Takata airbags, Ford Pinto, GM steering columns come to mind.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Imagine losing your 5 year old child.

Yeah. No. As tragic as that is, Apple is not liable. Sue the moron who caused the accident that killed your kid. Of course, that's not as profitable as suing a trillion dollar company, because the driver's pockets are not nearly as deep. What was it Forrest Gump said? Oh, yeah... "Stupid is as stupid does".

 

[SgtPepper12]

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.

You can't be seriously defending that case. Coffee is hot. Everybody who drank coffee once knows that. Like people know that hot plates are hot.

 

[tridley68]

Clearly this driver was looking for someone to blame instead of taking responsibility for his actions i hope they pull his driving privlige for a spell

 

[macduke]

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.

Yeah I know, but this guy’s legal argument was that Apple had a patent and the tech was in development but not yet implemented. It’s a scary precedent to set if you can hold companies liable for damages for something they haven’t implemented yet. Using that logic I could sue Apple because my uncle died at age 53 of a heart attack/falling to the concrete while wearing an Apple Watch and our family should be able to get damaged because they hadn’t yet implemented heart features and fall detection. Not to mention you shouldn’t be held liable for someone using your product illegally in a way that it was never intended. Do you know how many makeup companies would be liable for accidents? LOL.

 

[AppleScruff1]

What about a bartender serving someone who gets into an accident after leaving the bar?

 

[Bin Cook]

Standard dreadful responses.

The guy was making a point to try and get Apple to release the capability it already had, for if it saved one life in future then something good came from his loss.

Why is always about the dollar to some people?

 

[AZhappyjack]

Standard dreadful responses.

The guy was making a point to try and get Apple to release the capability it already had, for if it saved one life in future then something good came from his loss.

Why is always about the dollar to some people?

Because it's always about the money. Always.

 

[omihek]

My point was that even if the OP considered the person who brought the case to be "deluded", then maybe there was good reason for his state of mind. I'm not saying I agree with the father, just I can guess at his motivation.

I can too. Using his dead daughter to try and cash in from one of the richest companies in the world. Despicable.

 

[thiccNPC]

Nope you are missing the point. You are part of the problem when you do this, even if you could do it with Siri you are not paying 100% attention to driving. So stop doing that as it and you are not that important.

I totally agree with you. This person is pretty much holding himself up to the same standards that you'd have a for a child, in the sense that he feels someone else needs to make sure he doesn't do the wrong thing. "If Apple cannot make the phone less distracting, then I can't guarantee you that I won't cause an accident from using my phone".

It's one thing to be a part of the problem (many of us are), it's another to insinuate that it's someone else's fault for not doing enough to prevent you from it.
[doublepost=1545098185][/doublepost]

I can too. Using his dead daughter to try and cash in from one of the richest companies in the world. Despicable.

Yup. If a loved one died in a horrific accident, I wouldn't be thinking "how can I make money off of this?".
[doublepost=1545098272][/doublepost]I'm not sure what's worse - causing the death of innocent people or trying to make money off of a loved ones' death.

 

[Kabeyun]

...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.

Yes, that’s indeed what her lawyer said. Compellingly enough to win over a jury, in fact.

But then, there’s also the fact that many other restaurants serve coffee at the same temperature (which is the same temperature you’re supposed to brew coffee) which is why many other lawsuits like this one have been thrown out.

I guess callous disregard is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask James Modisette.

 

[B4U]

This reminds me the GM ignition switch issue when one of the "victim" was going 75 in a 25 mph residential zone without wearing her seat belt and hit the cul-de-sac all while being underage intoxicated. Still decided to sue GM because her key slipped out of ignition position and deactivated the vehicle's airbags...

 

[ActionableMango]

Standard dreadful responses.

The guy was making a point to try and get Apple to release the capability it already had, for if it saved one life in future then something good came from his loss.

Why is always about the dollar to some people?

Apple has released the feature.

The couple was suing for "economic and punitive damages", also known as "dollars".

 

[Alan Wynn]

Standard dreadful responses.

The guy was making a point to try and get Apple to release the capability it already had, for if it saved one life in future then something good came from his loss.

Why is always about the dollar to some people?

If it was not about the money, he could have sued to force them to implement the feature, but instead sued for monetary damages.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

So he or she thought it was smart to FaceTime while driving just like talking or texting on a phone while driving but yeah it's Apple's fault for being stupid. Does not matter if the phone warns you not to use it during driving it is basic logic and the option is there for iPhone to be not distracted while driving.


Why do people just not pull over to talk, text or FaceTime is it that hard or hard to also wait answer text, FaceTime or phone calls when you stop or at the destination you were driving to.
[doublepost=1545104435][/doublepost]

Just a brief counter argument here, but our car disables some functions on its entertainment/GPS/phone/messaging/ai assistant unit, or whatever you want to call it . This means some services cant be used while driving for those that feel the need to. A day might come where facetime/video calls might be disabled automatically when your vehicle is started.

But why FaceTime why not just talk on speaker do you really need to see each other on cam?

 

[spiddyman007]

If I were the family of those that died, I would truly despise the person who not only killed people I love, but then filed that lawsuit.

I cannot comprehend the pain that must have caused.

I’m pretty sure it says the dad of the child that died filled the lawsuit not the other driver