Motorcycle Accident Leads To Obsession Over Mobile Phone (And Sex)

from the say-what-now? dept

Tue, Mar 6th 2007 6:27am — Mike Masnick

We've all heard the various stories about technology addictions, but here's a fun one for you. Over in London, a court has awarded damages to a guy who became obsessed with mobile phones after trauma to his brain from a motorcycle accident. Apparently, after the crash, the guy became obsessed with playing mobile phone games every day, making him unemployable. There was also the other side effect, which was that he became obsessed with having sex daily. Hmm. You can have a court award damages for being obsessed with playing mobile phone video games and wanting to have sex daily? It would seem that a large percentage of the male population might be able to put forth claims for a similar award... "Brain trauma? Oh... uh... yeah... sure... brain trauma caused these obsessions..."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:33am

Like from banging your head on a keyboard when a program won't run???

Yeh --- That's It!!!

(First???)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casper, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:35am

I have brain trauma, I knew it! Now, let's talk about trading the cell phone for a laptop and bump up the daily minimum for sex...

Seriously, this has to set a bad precedent. How can they prove (or disprove) the amount of sex related to an accident? I mean it’s pretty clear cut if there is a physical reason you can no longer have sex, but to have more? I think there are going to be a lot more motorcycle accidents in the UK….
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cool Guy, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Casper
  Damages aren't very hard to get. In fact, I know of a guy who was rewarded damages because his wife was injured in a work related accident and was "unable to perform" for a couple months.
  
  The emotional distress it casued him and the lack of "action" in his marital life had a dollar amount of a couple thousand dollars!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Casper, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re: Casper
    Wow, it would be worth way more then a couple of thousand dollars to me. I think my wife would be pretty freaking insulted at that as well.
    
    I don't know what that guys wife looked like... it might have been more like a paid vacation... but depending on the amount awarded and the amount of time she was unable to "perform" it might be really insulting. Think about it, if she is out of action for 3 months, and the average was every other day, and he was awarded $5000. That works out that she was only valued at around $119 per act on the high end....
    5000/(((7 * 4) * 3)/2)=119.04
    
    Now that's harsh.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Married Man, 6 Mar 2007 @ 10:58am
      
      Re: #9
      Every other day? You my friend are either very lucky, or not married :)
      
      I would figure each act would be worth closer to $500 ...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bobo, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:49am
  
  Re:
  precedent doesn't carry as much weight in european courts as it does in American ones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howdee, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:35am

Huh?
The court award damages? Who payed this guy? The city of London payed him? I don't get it... but I don't get a lot of things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool Guy, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:35am

Damages...
I bet that guy is killer at Brickbreaker and a rocket in bed. Wow, he sounds like the Alpha male to me, and clever enough to call it brain damage!

I wonder if he was driving his motorcycle too fast, showing off to a chick and not wearing a helmet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stute, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:51am

It all makes sense now...
All those years of banging my head against the keyboard after reading the stupidity of people on the internet... That's why I'm obsessed with video games and sex!!!

I DEMAND FREE MONEY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SPR, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:52am

Brain Trauma??!!
Sounds like his accident caused the jury and/or the judge to have brain trauma!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cb, 6 Mar 2007 @ 7:57am

I've been obessed with sex since i was a kid. Now who's going to pay me for all these kids i have ?

ET Phone Home
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cj, 5 Jun 2007 @ 7:50pm
  
  Re:
  i will
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
julio, 6 Mar 2007 @ 8:02am

Good Lawyer! Anyobody got his name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mkvf, 6 Mar 2007 @ 8:07am

It's not really that far off the case of Phineas Cage, the unfortunate first experimental subject of lobotomy. While its easy to snigger, there's a big difference between thinking about something constantly, thinking about it constantly and being deprived of the physical capacity to control how you act upon your urges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mkvf, 6 Mar 2007 @ 8:16am

dammit, missed the first 'and' in that last sentence, and can't edit. Anyway, gives me the opportunity to link to a slightly more sensible report on the case. Odd how technology and sex both provoke newspapers into shoddy journalism - I guess having both together is a lazy editor's dream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MeeToo, 6 Mar 2007 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  Ahhh, now I see the light.....
  So he isn't really any different, he's a bit over compulsive, and bored. Alright, lazy too. Wants sex with his wife, who refuses him over 'hygiene' issues? So he turns to a video game? You know, in today's world, he should be commended his urges didn't take him to a mistress! His wife should run back to him, for his self control and faithfulness.
  
  No, the article isn't bad, my take is that the whole thing is 'shoddy'. He is a loser trying to milk the system. His wife got fed up with his laziness, and left him, so he came up with a way to blame someone else and get cash for it, while being further labeled a victim.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dam, 6 Mar 2007 @ 8:17am

If He's Obsessed by Sex....
he should get married. That'll cure him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 6 Mar 2007 @ 9:12am

RE: Damages...
He was probably playing phone games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mkvf, 6 Mar 2007 @ 9:18am

OK, a little "Neurology for webmongs"

You have a bit of your brain, at the base, where your primal urges (eat, shit, fuck the wife) come from.

You have a big bit, at the front, that works out that you don't necessarily want to do those three basic things all the time. It's the bit that means you sometimes come and post drivel here, rather than spending all day on The Hun.

If you put a big lump of metal (or a car bonnet, or a kerb) through the front of your head, you lose the bit that lets you work out when the right time to do these things is, and when it might cause you problems.

If it's someone else's fault that that happens, and you can't get a job or live a normal life because of it, why shouldn't you claim compensation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MeeToo, 6 Mar 2007 @ 10:29am
  
  Re:
  The point of the summary is to emphasize that a man was compensated for a: being in a mc accident b: wanting sex from his wife c: playing video games.
  
  The gentleman in question may be severely damaged, but that was not indicated in the summary, nor the article you chose to direct us to.
  
  Even if he is brain-damaged, he must be functioning at a level where he can enter into the work force. No, I would not expect a rocket scientist out of him, but he can focus on some other line of work suitable to his capability level.
  
  Whatever happened to the family? Families used to take care of it's members. When grandma got old and could not care for herself, one of her siblings took her in to care for her. If you had a brother who was mentally challenged, mom and dad cared for him, and then it was your turn when they were unable to anymore. If your wife lost her legs in an auto accident, you changed your life and cared for her, you didn't dump her because it wasn't in the 'package' you originally signed for.
  
  Sure give the guy a bit o'cash, but it shouldn't be enormous. Brain injury or not, he can still be a Wal-Mart greeter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
misanthropic humanist, 6 Mar 2007 @ 9:22am

compensation is arbitary
Brain injuries are fascinating. For a wonderful and slightly disturbing insight I highly recommend "The man who mistook his wife for a hat"
by Dr Oliver Sacks, the same guy upon whos work the film "Awakenings" was based.

I didn't read TFA but it's surprising that any doctor or psychologist was able to support him with reasonable proof of casuation in severe behavioural change.

Surely there's a job for him as a video game tester, or male prostitute :)

Anyway, it's sad/unfair that when there is an accident in a civillian situation a person can get enormous payouts, and yet the victims of combat, torture, displacement and abuse rarely get concessionary treatment even though they are also left unable to function in society.

The difference is basically that if the trauma can be traced to a single physical event you get a payout, but if the trauma is the result of a sustained psychological experience, no payout.

So a soldier whos life falls apart after he comes home from combat gets nothing, while fairly minor work accident can set you up for retirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never know, 6 Mar 2007 @ 9:26am

Trade a Vespa for a cell phone and a woman???
DAMN! I knew I 'm in the wrong business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Petréa Mitchell, 6 Mar 2007 @ 10:01am

Entirely possible
I'll third the comments about the bizarre and amazing things that brain injuries can do. (And let's not overlook the equally bizarre and amazing things the brain can do to compensate. See The Island of the Colorblind and An Anthropologist on Mars, also by Sacks.) But I would like to know more about how this was proved in court...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citizenj, 6 Mar 2007 @ 10:09am

well if you rtfa
you'd find that a)he's married, b)he's suing the guy who caused the accident and c)he had a job before the accident, but lost his job because now all he does is play cell phone games. do we know if he's faking? no, but it's probably pretty serious since his wife's leaving him (what wife would want to leave a husband that wishes to make lovey all day?). So no, the gov't isn't paying him, it's someone elses insurance company, and having recently been through a settlement for a life changing injury (my life changed, not someone else's) I say good on him and get all ya frickin can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mkvf, 6 Mar 2007 @ 11:40am

The point of the summary is to emphasize that a man was compensated for a: being in a mc accident b: wanting sex from his wife c: playing video games. The gentleman in question may be severely damaged, but that was not indicated in the summary, nor the article you chose to direct us to.
I think you're confusing 'emphasising' and 'misrepresenting'. Sure, that's what the summary and the first article says, but the article I dug up, the Phineas Cage case study, a bit of basic knowledge of neurology and some basic common sense is going to tell you that a court (OK, an English court, US courts may be a bit different) isn't going to award someone a million quid for the reasons you state. They might however for the sort of relatively common brain injury that causes you to lose all ability to engage in normal social behaviour.
Even if he is brain-damaged, he must be functioning at a level where he can enter into the work force... Brain injury or not, he can still be a Wal-Mart greeter.
No, not in this sort of case. The sort of injury all of the articles seem to be describing mean that you both lose the ability to control anti-social behaviour (squeezing any pair of breasts that come into your field of vision, for example - not ideal for a WalMart greeter) and the sense of cause and effect that allows the rest of us to see we have to motivate ourselves to go to work. That's what's being described when the articles talk about his poor hygiene - he has been deprived of the mental faculties needed to understand that he stinks, it will bother people, and that he can fix it by taking a wash.
Whatever happened to the family? Families used to take care of it's members.
Why should the family pay for someone else's action? If I come to your house, nick your stuff and kill your cat, should your parents be responsible for buying you new stuff and a new cat, or should I? If someone's (negligently) harmed another person, it's their responsibility to fix it, not the victim's family, or society, or the state. That's what makes the civil law great - it ensures the right person pays when something goes wrong.
No, I would not expect a rocket scientist out of him, but he can focus on some other line of work suitable to his capability level.
Well, this is an aside, but compensation here is worked out (in part) on the basis of what you've been deprived of. So, the part that compensates you for lost earnings will differ depending on what your job, and career expectations, were before the injury.
Sure give the guy a bit o'cash, but it shouldn't be enormous.
Well, the respondents (the insurers) seemed to agree that £1.2m was a fare sum. Consider what he's lost, and how you would value that. If I said to you that I'd pay you a million quid, in return for you giving up any ability of ever working, having a normal sexual relationship, any friends, or any of the normal ingredients of a healthy adult life, would you go for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
andy, 12 Jun 2007 @ 5:59am

maybe
yeah, maybe he's full of siht or maybe he's not. I had a 120mph car crash and have suffered from obsessions since then. It's ruined my life in fact.
just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]