http://www.cnn.com/...-sender-liable/index.html

They ruled that if the sender of text messages knows that the recipient is driving and texting at the same time, a court may hold the sender responsible for distraction and hold her liable for the accident.

"We hold that the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted," the court said.

But the judges let Colonna off the hook.

She had a habit of sending more than 100 texts a day and was oblivious to whether recipients were driving or not.

"I'm a young teenager. That's what we do," she said in her deposition before the original trial.

Since she was unaware that Best was texting while driving, she bore no responsibility, the court decided.

"In this appeal, we must also decide whether plaintiffs have shown sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment in favor of the remote texter. We conclude they have not," it said.

I think, by this same logic, they should be able to hold billboard companies liable if I look up at those flashy-digital-animated signs and hit someone.

I mean, it isn't *MY* fault they put that really attractive blonde on the billboard dancing? How was I to stay focused on the road???

"During the trial, Colonna, now 21, found it "weird" that the plaintiffs' tried to nail down whether she knew Best was texting behind the wheel."
In this particular case it's not about sending someone a SMS "being oblivious" whether the recepient is behind the wheel or not but, and I quote, " The teens were having a text chat, volleying each other messages every few moments". They both knew what they were doing. Quite indeed the the driver is ultimately responsible but Colonna was guilty at least for being idiot.

not a legal expert but my guess is that the logic follows the same as if you know your house guess has had too much to drink and you do nothing to try to stop them from driving home.

Not that this has anything to do with the case but as an aside texting while driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving if not more so.

How about eating a hamburger and driving? Putting on makeup and driving? Getting a blowjob and driving?

I think that last one might be illegal for other reasons, but not for distracted driving. ;)

WRT the "sending a text to someone you know is driving"... that is crazy.

If I know you are driving and I text you, that doesn't mean I am intentionally distracting you. I could expect you to read my text later and get back to me when it is convenient and safe to do so. Texting you doesn't FORCE you to read it or to respond.

If I email a Blackberry email addict, is that the same as texting?

What if I attack your EE country while I know you are driving (hoping you don't log on to wall) but you actually do and crash your car? Am I liable for attacking your country in EE and causing the car accident?

The others (other than the blowjob which I obviously don't have info on:P) apparently aren't as dangerous. One theory is that texting requires more attention than eating.I can eat a burger without really taking my eyes off the road. It's hard to text and do that although I suppose that could be interesting:P

i drive better when i text

Putting a makeup, same as SMS-ing, requires you to look at something else other than the road in front. As for the blowjob, if you're not distracted, even a little, then you're having other issues... :D

I used to be able to text without really taking my eyes off the road. Then my state made it illegal to text and drive, so now I have to text with my phone in my lap. :)

Seriously though, I could text and drive just fine before I got my stupid smart phone. I could feel the keys and knew how many times I had to hit each one for each letter. Never had to look to text.

Yeah, but now you can just ask Siri to send the message for you and voice dictate the message, completely hands free. Android has their equivalent software as well.

This is what I was going to touch on. Works for me every time, unless Siri is a fluff and screws up my message.

@Atryn: I agree with you, my statement re booze vs texting is probably what the court's logic is.. US civil law is odd though:P

You're mistakenly assuming it's the physical act that's the problem. It's really the distraction that's the problem because you are sharing your attention with someone else.

The most recent highest cause of distracted accidents was actually absentia: http://www.bloomberg.com/...in-fatal-car-crashes.html . Ergo, you breakup with a boyfriend or girlfriend, you fire someone or hire someone, you hear your favorite song, or whatever, is actually the most deadly distracted possibility.

As for the story as a whole, it's ridiculous to assign responsibility. The alcohol comparison is faulty because you didn't give this person this phone or have the ability to stop them. It would be like saying a friend meets you at a park. You both get drunk on beer the friend brought. You walk home and the friend drives before killing someone. You get charged with manslaughter because you didn't take proactive measures to ensure the person didn't drive...dumb.

@Trumper: taking your eyes off the road is an attention issue, not a physical issue. Your source limits the data to *fatal* car crashes, not all car crashes. There is actually a huge difference when looking at causation of an accident.

This list is also not comparing like to like. If I'm very angry I'm more likely to kill someone while driving than the average person who is texting. But one thing is an emotional state while driving the other is an act while driving, no apples to apples comparisson here so ranking them to assess "relative safety" of texting is spurious.
I can be angry while texting. I can be listening to music while texting.. so which is the cause?
Eating while texting is much harder :P

I didn't say the comparison was a good one either, just that that is probably the line of reasoning. Again I don't agree.
Regarding your example, depends on if the court decides you had a duty of care :P

some1 would "test water and see what happens".

Glad to see states other than cali come up with laws to shift the blame on someone innocent. Like letting 10k violent offenders out of prison because the conditions are crouded. Cali/NY are the testing grounds for socialism and liberal deuchebaggery.

I heard about that the other day on the news. God bless America! And on that note please have a listen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

Reminds me of an episode of Seinfeld where a woman walking down the sidewalk in a bra distracted jerry while he was driving and rear ended somebody. They sued the lady wearing the bra. Johnny Cochran even got involved.

You're the fluffing man for referencing Seinfeld!

^ idiot sighting!

The day someone tries to hold me liable for sending a text message is the day my tank comes out of storage.

abrams or older?

His Dwarf In WoW

his pally in diablo2

That whole entire law is bull hockey there is no way they can prove anything other than a text was sent and that is not against any law that is covered under the first amendment of the U.S, which states you can say anything to anybody anytime and they can go suck eggs in NEW JERSEY> IF I had that judges phone number I would go down the libray in town and get online and send him 1000 texts to his phone and it would read>

Do not read this while driving you asshole>

This is stupid. If I text someone that is driving I am not forcing them to read it while they are driving. They can read it as soon as it is safe to do so.

Leaned over tennis shoe, cigarette butt bagging, brown eye winking, cream pie swabbing, camel toe measuring laborer created laws. Thanks equal oppertunity.