Woman Sues Sprint Over Driving While Yakking Death
from the good-luck-there dept
More than five years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous lawsuit that involved a lawsuit against Cingular (now a part of AT&T) seeking to pin liability on Cingular for an accident caused by a driver who was talking on his phone. That lawsuit was tossed out as ridiculous (and again on appeal) with the court noting that the mobile phone operator was not at all responsible for what a driver did. Apparently, some folks are unaware of this case. Broadband Reports alerts us to the news that Sprint is being sued in a similar lawsuit. In this case, a woman was killed by a driver on the phone, and the woman's daughter is claiming that Sprint should have warned people of the risks of driving while talking on the phone. Nice try, but chances are, this lawsuit is going to get tossed just as fast as previous ones.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
Filed Under: car crash, driving while yakking, liability
Companies: sprint
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
face it, common sense just isn't that common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit was an actual legitimate lawsuit, not frivolous as popular myth believes.
The coffee wasn't just hot; it was dangerously hot (180 degrees, at least 20 degrees hotter than at any other restaurant, enough cause third degree burns in seconds). McDonald's knew this after over 700 complaints before the incident that sparked the lawsuit and their own expert consultants. The cups and lids were so flimsy they were prone to spilling when opening (eg to add cream and sugar).
The woman who sued suffered third degree burns to her thighs, legs, and groin; she literally burned her genitals off and was disabled for years afterwards. If the coffee had been at a standard ~155 degrees, she might have suffered minor first degree burns, but nothing serious.
The following links have more information on the case, Liebeck v. McDonald's:
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
The Actual Facts about the Mcdonalds' Coffee Case
McFacts abut the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit
While I agree that many lawsuits these days (including the one against Sprint in the article) are frivolous, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is *not* one of them. It is one of the few cause where a lawsuit actually helped fix a wrong and keep a corporation honest; after the lawsuit McDonald's finally changed its policy regarding coffee temperature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
Never underestimate the power of stupidity in America....
Because often times we're not just stupid, but WILLFULLY stupid....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gun Makers Do Warn Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like the chic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like the chic
Phyllis A. Engleson, Plaintiff, v. Little Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, Civil No. 01-1072 (DWF/RLE).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like the chic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like the chic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Like the chic
Of course the plaintiff's argument that the city needed to warn her of a warning cone is pretty hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Like the chic
But then how would you warn them of the warning sign warning you of a warning cone? There would be a never ending chain of warning objects. It would be madness!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cases like these
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cases like these
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cases like these
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Made up news from the past....
Judge Ima Idiot, who thought this new "car radio" technology was "of the devil, because it did not exist when I was a kid," agreed with the plaintiff Anita Someonetoblame and awarded 10 bucks. Which incidentally, would be worth $40 billion when adjusted into dollars for the year 2009.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Made up news from the past....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designer of the Mini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Designer of the Mini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Designer of the Mini
The Mini designer also made the seats purposely uncomfortable to keep the driver alert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving with both hands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving with both hands
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
har har
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost ready to agree with the suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost ready to agree with the suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost ready to agree with the suit
That is pure over-legislation. Are we going to need homer simpson laws?
- Faxing while driving can be dangerous and should be illegal
- Making Nachos while driving can be dangerous and should be illegal
- Watching a portable tv while driving can be dangerous and should be illegal
.
.
.
How about enforce the law for reckless driving and call it a day. You know what happened with hands free in CA? First day cops handed out tickets left and right, hands free manufacturers made a mint and everyone was off the phone. 3 days later, back to normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost ready to agree with the suit
Great, I installed that microwave in the dash for nothing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost ready to agree with the suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost ready to agree with the suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like they say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY sprint is right
i get wasted at a bar its not the owners responsibility to make sure i dont drive and walk out drunk of his place, try waving your keys around saying im a driving home cause sprint told me i can
this logic then can be said if i get pulled over by coppers driving drunk and have not yet killed anyone that it also is not that cops business and he can call sprint for hte reason why.....
HAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEY sprint is right
i get wasted at a bar its not the owners responsibility to make sure i dont drive and walk out drunk of his place, try waving your keys around saying im a driving home cause sprint told me i can
this logic then can be said if i get pulled over by coppers driving drunk and have not yet killed anyone that it also is not that cops business and he can call sprint for hte reason why.....
HAHAHAHA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its now illegal in ontario canada to use a cell while driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I see a new commercial on the horizon....?
(/play off theres an app for that)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The argument will be that it's as if, hmm, a ski resort ran repeated ads showing people with previous skiing experience using some kind of new-fangled skis on a special course with no instruction, then put a warning at the end of those books of local attractions they put in rooms saying "Don't go out on the slopes until you've learned how to ski" - and then claimed to someone injured "Oh, you should have known better."
Well, maybe - but this isn't even such a great analogy, since the actual hazards from cell phone use are much less obvious than those of skiing. Everyone jumped on "hands-free" operation as the issue, because *that* seemed like the obvious hazard. Except that it wasn't, and isn't. While it doesn't *feel* like "just talking on the phone" has much of an effect - how many of the previous posters here *don't* use their cellphones while driving? - the fact is objective measurement shows it does.
Laws are supposed to be unambiguous. It's fine to say that general laws about distracted driving are enough - but how do you know when such a law has been violated? Is it a law you trot only when there's already been an accident and you want *something* to charge an idiot driver with? Or do you want something that might actually be effective in preventing accidents? Frankly, I don't all that much care if people do stupid, dangerous things that only harm themselves - but I damn well *do* care what they do when they share the road with me.
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Back in the 70s nearly everyone drunk alcohol and drove. Now, most people are aware that drinking and driving is bad and most people do not do it. What caused this change in attitude among drivers?
Was it dramshop lawsuits against the producers and servers of alcohol? Did that cause people to decide drinking and driving was a bad idea? Not even a little bit. Those lawsuits shifted the blame away from the drivers, leaving them off the hook for the vast majority of damages.
What caused the mental shift were tough laws against the perpetrators of the dangerous condition, the drunk drivers. After a few of your buddies serve prison time for drunk driving, your eyes tend to open a bit to reality.
So in this instance, exactly how does holding phone companies liable for people yakking on their phones, stop people from yakking on their phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I recently bought a desk lamp for my son. It came with not one but two warning labels on the cord that essentially warned me that electricity is dangerous. I kid you not. There was also a label on the hood of the lamp that stated the bulb could get hot - naturally it was a pain in the ass to remove that label. Half the 'manual' was nothing but warnings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warnings? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
distracted driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]