Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Gav2k, Jan 3, 2017.
Apple sued over fatal 'FaceTime crash'
Another example of the need for tort reform.
nah. This will never be awarded.
I hope that it's just a way for the parents to raise some sort of awareness on the consequences of using the phone while driving...
No doubt it wont amount to a pay out. How much will Apple have to pay the lawyer defending this lawsuit though? If you must sue, how about going after the one that was irresponsible.
Why? You don't have faith in a jury or a judge deciding if Apple has liability after hearing the relevant facts? If not, why do you have faith in a judge or a jury to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime that could send that person to prison or worse, to death?
we live in a country where suing is the only way to get anywhere.....................
For me the most interesting part is that Apple will be bitten in their a## by one of their BS patents......
Not really. A reasonable expectation is that the driver knows that a videochat - or any other tool that distracts - should not be used while driving. I don't see how Apple could be faulted for this.
Nah, I don't expect them to win this one.
But either way it may make some real bad PR espcially considering Apple had the BS patent about preventing this very desaster.
I don't see how it could be bad PR. A driver made a very bad decision, and as a result an innocent kid died. Having a patent doesn't mean marketability or feasibility. Many cars now have automatic break systems, or at least some sort of aid to help a distracted driver. Are they at fault for not providing those features in the majority of models, especially if someone dies?
Even if not, Lawyers will still get paid, and there will be more encouragement to bring more frivolous law suites.
The grief is real, but the solution is Education in schools, Public Education campaign, and even a few laws, not lawsuits.
After the parents will have to pay for Apple's lawyers fees this might actually bring to fewer lawsuits.
I don't think that Education in schools is the solution in this case. I have yet to meet a single driver who doesn't know that texting while driving is dangerous. We all know it. The solution is a $500 ticket if you even touch the phone.
Did the article mention that it was an Apple corporate car or an Apple employee on Apples time and I miss it? Who was driving? Who was cited as the at fault party? Therein lies the answer to who was responsible.
Hmm... seems like interesting questions for authorities to explore. Wouldn't it be nice if there was an impartial group of people who could look at all the relevant facts to determine who does and does not have liability? And wouldn't it be nice if these impartial people could determine what level of liability there is based on the all of the relevant facts as opposed to some arbitrary rules written by people who know nothing about the particulars of this case?
Regardless of the persons job title the liability will be on the driver committing the act
So you support suing peoples/companies into bankruptcy? Of course Apple most likely already has in-house council to defend this so it doesn't really effect them too much. Now how about if it was a kitchen table programmer and the app he/she created was the last app used on the phone of the party that caused the wreck.
Watched a brief talk on this and was surprised at the two predominate viewpoints.
1. Take responsibility for your actions. You cannot expect companies to engineer in functions that cover all our bad or stupid actions.
2. This was a documented concern at Apple. If a company recognizes a potential issue, would they engineer in controls that help prevent the issue? Should Apple have built in a lockout while driving?
I go with number 1. Still it was an interesting take.
The faulty reasoning in viewpoint 2 is that it would miss the reasonable expectation test. When you're on the road, it is expected that you know the basics of driving, the laws, and the rules. That's why you have a driver license, and you have to pass two exams (written and practical). This is why you need to be of a certain age. In other words, you assume the risks. When you drive, you also assume that the person driving next to you on the road meets the reasonable expectations.
Now, if Apple had willfully prevented the correct activity of driving, or if Apple in any way decided to damage the driver's rights on purpose, then yeah it would be at fault. In this case, the iPhone did what it is expected to do, and the car did what it is expected to do. The only part that didn't "function" properly was the driver - incidentally the entity entrusted with both the iPhone and the car - that going against every regulation, and against any reasonable expectation, decided to videochat while driving, thus hindering himself in the function of driving, a function which he willfully accepted to perform the moment he turned on the car.
You just did a great argument for #1. I whole-heartedly agree.
The premise for #2 is if a company knew the risk, are they reasonably expected to "fix" it before releasing into commerce? Interesting dilemma. Makes me think back to all the safety warnings and controls we have on products....
It's not a risk of the product, it's a risk of the user.
In other words, it's not like an exploding battery or something that has to do with the expected use of the object. The law itself prohibits to drive while watching a screen, so it can't be argued that it was reasonable to use Facetime while driving. It's not reasonable because it's against the law (and stupid in itself). The company does not have to put anything in the product that has to deal with the usage of another tool in combination with the object itself.
For example, if I am drilling a hole in the wall while looking at my phone, and I injure my hand, who's to blame? Black and Decker? Apple? or the user? The user. The fact that we can implement a technology to limit this problem (for example requiring two hands to use an electric driller) doesn't mean that Black and Decker is at fault.
Again, there's also the license particular. The driver had a license to drive and had to pass a government examination in which he agreed that he knew all the laws of the case. The phone did what the phone was supposed to do, and the car did what the car was supposed to do. All was within the laws and regulations, and there was no damage to the consumer sought by Apple or the car manufacturer. The driver decided to disobey the law, and common sense.
The safety warnings are often stupid, but they are to clarify the expected use of a product. A microwave oven is to heat things. Microwaving a cat is "heating" something, therefore it might lie within the expected use of the product... as stupid as it might be (then we have to see how unreasonable it is).
Until the law starts treating being on your phone like a DUI, people are going to keep thinking they've gotten good at it. Maybe if the court costs and diversion programs start adding up to thousands of dollars and they lose their license for 6 months, then maybe people will get off their ****ing phones when they drive.
1st offense is 6 months, 2nd is 1yr, 3rd is revocation.
Why do we even need new laws. I would think most states have reckless operation of a motor vehicle type laws. Which is worse putting on make-up, eating a burger, or texting? All three distract the driver.
Just to make it clear:
In a huge parking lot.
Parked correctly. Making a phone call.
Woman on the phone drives that car.
Car hits me.
From the side.
My Car totaled.
She keeps talking on the phone.
--- Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017 ---
Best I've seen in TX, on I-30, was a woman driving while reading a book with a cat on her shoulder.
--- Post Merged, Jan 3, 2017 ---
What did she get cited for? I have seen the book reading on the freeway thing before.
ETA: What do they call the interstate there? Highway, Freeway or Interstate?
The lady with the cat? I don't know what she got cited for, or if she got cited for anything. She was driving next to me.