Comments on: New Jersey woman sued over sending text to someone who was driving

By: Judge: text-sender can’t be sued for recipient’s crash - Overlawyered

Fri, 25 May 2012 19:30:06 +0000

[…] Friday in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the country.” [AP/USA Today, earlier] […]

By: Still not wearing my seat belt - Page 7

Still not wearing my seat belt - Page 7 — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:03:13 +0000

[…] the injured in this case – but holding the sender of the text responsible is a false premise… New Jersey woman sued over sending text to someone who was driving – Overlawyered On Sept. 21, 2009, a nineteen-year-old man struck a couple on a motorcycle while texting behind […]

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 23 May 2012 08:38:44 +0000

So, the lesson here is never, under any circumstances, ever text anyone lest they be doing something you know nothing about and from which the text distracts them and therefore makes you liable to a judgment that will destroy your entire financial future. Hmmm… that applies to phone calls, email, instant messaging, US postal mail that they might open and read, gee, just about any form of communication. I’ll have to just give it ALL up because some lawyer will sue me if someone else does something stupid with my communication. Shakespeare was right.

By: mtnrunner2

mtnrunner2 — Sat, 19 May 2012 16:47:31 +0000

What about the phone manufacturer? Deep pockets! What about the cell-tower maker, the screen manufacturer, the chip maker? What about the billboard company whose billboard they glanced at? What about the musician who wrote the song they were jamming to? What about the crow that flew over, which they saw?

Insane. But we all know the world has lost sight of a sane definition of “responsibility”.

By: mike

mike — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:21:07 +0000

should be “Dismissed with SANCTIONS to plaintiff”

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:28:52 +0000

As texting is a store and forward system, unless he’s claiming that the notification beep on his phone is what distracted him he has no reason and (depending on the state law an legal obligation not) to attempt to read or reply to that text until he’s in a safe situation (not driving). That appears to be an intervening negligent act between the sending of the text and the accident. Even if there was a back and forth texting conversation, any reasonable person would assume that the other person is in a safe and legal situation to have that conversation so I don;t see how there can be any negligence on her part.

By: Tom Murin

Tom Murin — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:18:27 +0000

@wfjag: Intending an action (sending a text) is not the same as intending an injury. You’re clearly not familiar with how the intentional acts exclusion works. Ditto with personal liability coverage – you don’t have to be on the insured property for it to apply.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:15:34 +0000

@David Schwartz: A universal duty of reasonable care is generally recognized, even under states that apply the Restatement (2d) of Torts. The duty is broadened by the Restatement (3d).

However, I agree with you to the extent you mean that more than negligence should be necessary. It is fairly well established that texting and driving reduces the driver’s performance to the level of someone who is DUI, and this is fairly well known. If Ms. Colonna was aware that the guy was driving, a recklessness or intentional tort appears possible.

RE: sign spinners — while I think they are really obnoxious, there’s no proof that they are unreasonably dangerous.

@ Tom Murin: Most homeowners’ and renters policies have intentional torts exclusions. (see response to Mr. Schwartz). Also, I have seen nothing indicating that she was at home or doing anything which would trigger coverage under the typical provisions of such policies. While it is possible, it seems like a long shot. This looks like a long hours for no pay type of allegation (unless she has a trust fund or there are some other facts indicating that she isn’t likely judgment proof). IMO, this looks like a suit by an attorney who failed to adequately screen and investigate his case first. I suspect that his best chance of collecting will be under his own client’s UIM coverage.

By: David Schwartz

David Schwartz — Wed, 16 May 2012 05:05:39 +0000

wfjag: There’s no relationship between the victim and the sender of the text message from which a duty could arise. This would reduce to “everyone has a duty to everyone”. How about sign spinners? Don’t they have a duty not to distract drivers?

By: Tom Murin

Tom Murin — Wed, 16 May 2012 03:05:35 +0000

If she resides at home she would be covered for personal liability under her parents’ homeowners or renters insurance.