BF2S Forums The daughter of cell phone accident victim sues cell phone company

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

This perpetuates the belief that nothing is anyone's fault, so we must sue manufacturers.

Guy is talking on a cell phone, not paying attention, and kills a woman.  So the cell phone company's CEO must have been behind the guy forcing him to use the phone because it wasnt the guy's fault for not paying attention, oh no that would just be stupid.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

This perpetuates the belief that nothing is anyone's fault, so we must sue manufacturers.

Guy is talking on a cell phone, not paying attention, and kills a woman.  So the cell phone company's CEO must have been behind the guy forcing him to use the phone because it wasnt the guy's fault for not paying attention, oh no that would just be stupid.

You forgot to mention that the cell phone company makes way more money than the driver of the car.

13/f/taiwan wrote:

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure she could sue the driver of the vehicle and the insurance will have to pay for the cost.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

-=]NS[=-Eagle wrote:

This perpetuates the belief that nothing is anyone's fault, so we must sue manufacturers.

Guy is talking on a cell phone, not paying attention, and kills a woman.  So the cell phone company's CEO must have been behind the guy forcing him to use the phone because it wasnt the guy's fault for not paying attention, oh no that would just be stupid.

You forgot to mention that the cell phone company makes way more money than the driver of the car.

What the hell does money have to do with it? Money's not going to bring her mother back from the grave. The guy should be barred from ever getting a license again, have his car repo'd and sold (the money can go to the daughter) and then be locked up in jail for a very long time.

This is like suing Anheuser-Busch for drunk driving accidents. That's retarded. Just sue the person responsible for his actions.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I know they would, that doesn't mean they should be able to.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I know they would, that doesn't mean they should be able to.

Yea, it's all that damn 'freedom' everyone's talking about....

I can't tell if you're seriously supporting this woman suing a cell phone company for something they have zero responsibility for or not.

mcminty wrote:

Hurri, you think she is completely retarded for going after the mobile phone company, right? Regardless...

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

What the hell does money have to do with it?

Wait a sec.

She is suing the manufacturer of the mobile phone. A completely frivolous lawsuit.

And it's NOT about money.

ha. hahaha hahahahaha

Right.


Anyway,

Questions about how much the wireless industry knew about the risks of distracted driving are not academic — at least not to Jennifer Smith.

Ms. Smith’s mother was killed last year when her car was hit by a driver talking on his cellphone. Ms. Smith, 35, has sued the companies that provided the driver’s phone and wireless service.

She hopes to prove that the companies should have foreseen the dangers and that they failed to provide adequate warnings.

Legal experts said her lawsuit, currently the only such case and one of only a handful ever filed, faces steep challenges but also raises interesting questions about responsibility for behavior that is a threat to everyone on the road.

“This is a compelling type of legal claim,” said Kenneth A. Bamberger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. “It deals with the widespread use of a product we now know is involved in significant risk and deals with the ultimate question of who should contribute in minimizing the risk.”

The lawsuit, filed in October, involves a crash in Oklahoma City on Sept. 3, 2008. Ms. Smith’s mother, Linda Doyle, 61, died after her Toyota Rav4 was hit by a Ford pickup driven by Christopher Hill. Mr. Hill, then 20, told the police he was so distracted by a cellphone call that he ran a red light at 45 miles an hour, hitting Ms. Doyle’s car as it crossed in front of him.

Federal or state governments should legislate a ban on using mobile phones while driving. There should also be severe fines/penalties for breaching these laws.

Done.

mcminty wrote:

Morpheus wrote:

Err... it is technically illegal to use a cellphone while driving in most states now...

It is? That's a welcome change from the pop-culture image of America that's presented on TV here..

What are the penalties, in your state for example?

Here if a driver gets caught, they get a fine of $250-330 and lose 3 or 4 demerit points from their license. Provisional drivers (17-21) have either 4 or 7 demerit points on their license (depending on the class of license).. so to lose that much is a lot. If all are lost, then the license is usually suspended for 6 months..

CapnNismo wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Ah, "technically". I get ya.

Mm, it still seems that many states allow handheld use, which is of course both a distraction to the driver and another obstacle if they need to react quickly to traffic conditions.

There need to be uniform legal changes at a federal level, as well as a cultural paradigm shift, in order to change the behaviour of drivers. It would be well worth it..

You're right - but the problem is the federal government in the USA. When people make these blanket statements about things America needs to fix, they don't realize that the federal government is too large and corrupt to fix any of it. A lot of America's problems could be fixed at the state level if you could get all 50 states to band together and ignore the federal government, but that's just as unlikely as waiting for Congress to do something.

Again, you're right, but it will never happen. The American government (I'm an American) and the vast majority of the county is just too stupid, culturally and intellectually.

Morpheus wrote:

Err... it is technically illegal to use a cellphone while driving in most states now...