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
So you’d rather people were killed then, because people die every day due to drivers using their phones, every single day....
The threats of bans and prison are not stopping us behaving like selfish idiots. So I’d rather something was forced onto people, I can’t wait for cars to be intelligent enough to not drive if your over the limit, that’ll stop more injuries and deaths. And is exactly the same thing. Humans being selfish and not caring about the consequences of their actions to others.
[doublepost=1545118674][/doublepost]
Because to some it’s much more important then life itself. The world clearly displays this unfortunately.
I don't agree that Apple should be held liable, but I don't think the person was deluded in trying.
Apple had a way to stop people using their mobile while driving and didn't implement the feature in the phone and potentially could have stopped the incident.
Apart from the fact they could probably only tell the phone was in moving traffic, they probably couldn't tell whether that was on a bus, taxi, car passenger, motor bike, bike...
I think you've misunderstood my point. Others were suggesting that the father was driven by greed or stupidity. I was suggesting they needed to consider that he was more likely to be given by terrible grief, never mind how misguided his actions are.
Sadly though, there are others who - as you say - are just happy to dismiss him as greedy and/or delusional. They criticise people based only on a reason that only exists for certain in their own heads.
Last edited:
People who start lawsuits like that in my opinion suffer from what ii call the 'McDonald's hot tea affect' or the 'Dry Dog in a microwave effect'.
The back story on both incidents, especially the hot tea (i think it was tea, may have been coffee) because that one has been widely known for years. Both's cases are true. A lady successfully sued McDonald's because the cup she was carrying her hot drink in did not having a warning on it to say it was hot. The lady accidentally split the hot drink on herself causing severe burns to her legs. She sued and won.
The second incident is a lady who killed her small dog by putting it in her newly purchased microwave. It must be noted, this was back when microwaves were new and becoming a big thing. Anyway, it rained whilst she was walking her dog. Because microwaves 'warmed/heated' things up, as it was noted in the devices operating manual, she decided to put her dog in the microwave to dry it off. The died and the woman was going to be prosecuted for animal cruelty but she won her case because the microwaves operating manual did not state you cannot put animals in them to dry them off.
Since those two cases have been doing the media rounds for years, people have been trying to find ways to sue companies, businesses, local councils, basically anyone they can, for not putting up warning signs, warning messages in operating guides or popup warning messages in electronic devices.
I read a story recently in Yahoo about a teenager in the UK who tried to sue her local council for not putting up warning signs about how unsafe the zip line in the local park was. Basically, her friend 'pushed her' which meant she was going to fast, she fell off and broke her back in 4 places. Because there was no warning signs saying you shouldn't do that, she and her friend believed it was safe to do what they did. The teenager lost the case.
Common sense is a trait very rarely used in society.
The back story on both incidents, especially the hot tea (i think it was tea, may have been coffee) because that one has been widely known for years. Both's cases are true. A lady successfully sued McDonald's because the cup she was carrying her hot drink in did not having a warning on it to say it was hot. The lady accidentally split the hot drink on herself causing severe burns to her legs. She sued and won.
The second incident is a lady who killed her small dog by putting it in her newly purchased microwave. It must be noted, this was back when microwaves were new and becoming a big thing. Anyway, it rained whilst she was walking her dog. Because microwaves 'warmed/heated' things up, as it was noted in the devices operating manual, she decided to put her dog in the microwave to dry it off. The died and the woman was going to be prosecuted for animal cruelty but she won her case because the microwaves operating manual did not state you cannot put animals in them to dry them off.
Since those two cases have been doing the media rounds for years, people have been trying to find ways to sue companies, businesses, local councils, basically anyone they can, for not putting up warning signs, warning messages in operating guides or popup warning messages in electronic devices.
I read a story recently in Yahoo about a teenager in the UK who tried to sue her local council for not putting up warning signs about how unsafe the zip line in the local park was. Basically, her friend 'pushed her' which meant she was going to fast, she fell off and broke her back in 4 places. Because there was no warning signs saying you shouldn't do that, she and her friend believed it was safe to do what they did. The teenager lost the case.
Common sense is a trait very rarely used in society.
People also reasonably expect to be able to drink it without suffering 3rd degree burns when they do; which was was McD's coffee would do if you drank it immediately. McD's own expert admitted it was too hot to drink safely. I think the reasonable person standard applies here.
Certainly, and if you put your hand on it that's you fault because a reasonable person wouldn't' now if they also made the power cable heat up due to the design and someone burned their hand that would be a different situation. A reasonable person would not expect that since the cord is designed to be handled even if the plate is hot.
[doublepost=1545129086][/doublepost]
Rightfully, IMHO. The judge also reduced the verdict for damages due to her being partially at fault, something most leave out when citing the case, and the punitive damages as well from 3 mill to around 600k. As with many examples people often cite, there's a lot more to the story than "lady sues McD's over hot coffee..."
Many of the places where McD's served those also didn't serve it at that temperature, so it's not as if it was the norm. I believe that hurt McD's case as well. And some companies lose them. Starbucks has as well.
I do agree there are far too many stupid lawsuits. Suing Apple because a distracted driver hit you is one. As is suing Apple because the iPhone's visible screen size is a tad smaller than advertised; even though Apple said so in its ad where it explained how screen size is measured.
Last edited:
The fact that you could see why the person tried to sue probably says more about the American mentality than anything else. Personal responsibility seems like a foreign concept there sometimes.
Talking hands free is no safer then holding the phone, just are just as distracted, it doesn't matter if you are looking at the road or not if you are focusing on something else. What you are doing is exactly the same as what the guy who crashed in this article did. And why do you doubt that other people don't answer their phones whilst driving? it really isn't hard. If I am distracted on the phone whilst walking and accidentally walk into somebody the chance of them being injured are very slim.
The difference between hands free and holding a phone is legality in many jurisdictions.
It's amazing how many people think driving is number 3 or less on their task-list, while actually driving.
What’s the likelihood that the child’s father approached a lawyer with the thought of suing Apple, as opposed to an attorney seeking the dad out with the promise of a huge cash settlement or jury verdict? I bet it’s the latter. This frivolous lawsuit did nothing but give false hope to a grieving parent. And even if it was his idea, he should have been dissuaded.
While traffic fatalities in the United States have recently increased, the rate of fatalities is dropping if you divide total number of fatalities by total miles driven each year in the United States.
What is changing is who is dying. Cars are becoming safer every year due to air bags, adaptive cruise control, tire pressure monitoring systems, etc. Every year the percentage of "traffic fatalities" shifts a little more away from vehicle occupants (drivers and passengers) and more toward non occupants (pedestrians and cyclists). I agree with the earlier post from a motorcyclist (I am a bicyclist) that distracted drivers are a major concern for those of us who legally share the road with distracted drivers of multi-ton vehicles. We have a lot more at risk than they do.
I’d imagine grief would make a lot of people do things they wouldn’t normally do...
Under that logic, anything goes once someone experiences significant grief because they are not to be judged.
[doublepost=1545141768][/doublepost]
Actually, money makes people do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do. Notice there wasn't a lawsuit against the people who were Facetiming the driver while she was driving, knowing full well what they were doing was insanely dangerous.
People are killed by guns. Do you go after gun manufacturers? Better yet, people are killed by choking on chicken bones. Do we need to go after farmers? People are killed by reckless driving due to excess speeds. Do we need to go after and hold car makers liable because they didn't limit the speed in their cars? No. The answer to all these is no.
You don't have any logic in your argument because there is none. Personal responsibility towards others, in this case, starts by not driving distracted while answering a call, sending a text or video chatting. A corporation is not your baby sitter, neither should they be held as one. You should be your own baby sitter.
It could be possible to make it a lot more complicated to do while the device is moving. A thing that a passenger may find annoying but sustainable, and a driver a PITA to get on with
Golly gee whiz? Really? I mean, gosh, could that be because guns are (wait for it to sink in, this is a difficult concept) designed specifically to kill things, whereas phones and cars (another frequent victim of red-herring "arguments" by persons who have fallen for NRA propaganda) are not actually designed specifically as killing machines?
If you can't understand it by yourself, no way anyone could explain this to you
It doesn't matter daughter, son, grandfather or mother. I have lost too to traffic accidents and the blame I place is always on the driver, not the vehicle or anything within being used. But screw logic when it comes to baby sitting right? You have to hold people, not corporations accountable when the issue is reckless or distracted driving.
How hard of a concept is that to understand?
I would guess that most of us (by which I mean "me") would fundamentally agree that there are a lot of frivolous and absurd lawsuits. But I do want to pick at that coffee lawsuit for a moment, because I used to make fun of that also, and hold it up as an example of stupid people that get $ for being stupid. But, it turns out that McDonalds brewed coffee at a far hotter temperature than usual, and in this case it did cause truly ghastly burns (i.e. not just to the thighs but to other things "in that area"). McDonalds was clearly at least at partial fault. I feel really badly that I ever made fun of this woman. Here is the low-down.