Linda and David Kubert, who each lost a leg in a 2009 accident caused in part, apparently, by Kyle Best — whose truck hit their motorcycle — being distracted by a series of text messages being sent to him by his girlfriend, Shannon Colonna, have received a $500,000 settlement from Best (the maximum his insurance policy would pay).
The case made the news earlier this year when the Kuberts’ attorney tried to add Colonna as a defendant, claiming she was partly responsible for the accident because she was texting Best when she knew he was driving. A judge ruled against that attempt back in May, but the Kuberts are appealing the decision.
May 25, 2012: The Right Ruling for the Wrongest Possible Reason
A judge ruled today that Shannon Colonna, the woman who was texting to her boyfriend while he was driving, can’t be sued along with her boyfriend over the accident he caused.
While I agree that Shannon Colonna should not have been held liable for the accident, Superior Court Judge David Rand’s reasoning baffles me: he explained that Colonna had no control over when Best read his messages.
Well, while this is technically true, this wasn’t a case of Colonna sending a single message that Best might or might not have read while driving: they’d been exchanging a series of texts. If you send one message to a driver and he reads it while driving and responds, and then you send a second message to the driver and he reads it while driving and responds, and then you send a third message to the driver and he reads it while driving and responds, then you can assume with near certainty that your action (sending a fourth message) will cause him to read the message while he’s driving.
More
May 11, 2012: Texting While Driving Leads to a Serious Accident: Should the person who SENT the text to the driver be held partially responsible?
Texting while driving is illegal in New Jersey (quite incredibly it’s not illegal in all states, but that’s a matter for another day), and that’s what Kyle Best was doing three years ago when he ran into David and Linda Kubert’s motorcycle. The accident cost the married couple their left legs, and Best was sentenced to pay $775 in fines and lecture high school students about the dangers of texting while driving.
Not much of a punishment, all things considered, but that again is a matter for another day.
The Kuberts are suing Best, not surprisingly; but they’re also suing Shannon Colonna, Best’s friend, who texted him even though she knew he was driving at the time
More
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
I think even the “very indirectly” is a bit of a reach.
Only very, very, very indirectly. But everyone who lives in America “deserves” to be sued for something or another, why not for texting?
If she is worthy of being sued, then the same holds true for billboard companies and radio stations, who clearly are also targeting drivers.
I think you need an option for “not responsible at all”.
Agreed with the previous posts. I’m not a fan of the notion that text messages absolutely need to be dealt with the moment they are received (a notion merely irritating in situations that aren’t dangerous).
Where’s the “no” button?
Winter and James, in this case I consider “very indirectly” to be the legal and moral equivalent of “no”: I mean, if she hadn’t texted him, none of this would have happened. And maybe it wouldn’t have happened if that butterfly in Brazil hadn’t flapped its wings.
Go for the money. Adam the Text-Reading Driver, net worth $10,000: nope. Beth the Text-Sender, net worth minus $5,000, nope. Carl, Beth’s father who gave Beth the cell phone, net worth one million dollars, now we’re talking. Dennis the CEO of the company that made the cell phone Carl bought for Beth, net worth ten billion dollars: THERE’s the one to sue. He’s got liability insurance for this so you can probably settle out of court for a couple of million and save the insurance company the expense of the trial.
My first response was a no. There was no good reason for Best to respond to the text in the first place, and his friend would not necessarily have know he was driving when she sent the text. But apparently she did know he was driving. How many text messages were exchanged before the accident? Does she share no responsibility in abetting an illegal act?
None. There is no requirement to respond to a text message when it is received.
I only send people text messages when I do not require an immediate response and do not want to interrupt what they are doing.
If I need an immediate response at the risk of interrupting them, then I’ll call.
If I receive a text message while I am driving or talking to someone or doing something else I consider more important, I ignore it and respond later.
But I’m old and can consider priorities.
My cell phone is for MY convenience, not yours. I don’t answer if I don’t want to. Same for texts.
For all those saying she isn’t responsible, does a bar have a responsibility to not serve anyone who is drunk? I don’t have a cite, but it is my understanding that private individuals can be held responsible for people leaving their residence in an inebriated state and causing an accident. The parallels aren’t exact, but there does seem to be a bit of a mentality that as a society we cannot abet wrongful behavior. I’m against Shannon sharing any responsibility in the same way I’m against the other two scenarios I mentioned.
What if she had called him instead, and he had cause the accident? Would she be responsible then? I would think the same answer applies if she texts instead.
Only if she knew he was driving and that she knew he would answer/text while driving.
She clearly knew he was driving, as it says so in the last sentence. Again, I don’t think she should be responsible, but there is that element in our society that says we all need to be partially responsible for not enticing others into known bad acts.
So if this lawsuit is successful, we’ll have to make sure to not text people while they’re driving? Which we can’t find out unless we text or call them?
This is stupid. You can’t reasonably choose to not text someone while they’re driving in most cases, but you can certainly choose to not read an incoming text.
In days gone by, cell phones used to have a “driving mode” which, if you switched it own, it would cause your calls to route to voice mail with a message that you were currently behind the wheel. Something similar for texting could easily be done. You’d still have to turn it on of course but then I suppose Airplane mode is probably the equivalent nowadays.
But yes, the whole thing is silly to begin with.
No, that’s a ridiculous lawsuit.
It’s perfectly reasonable to send someone a text when you know they’re not able to receive it. That’s one advantage of a text over a voice call, it waits on-screen until the recipient has an opportunity to read it. It’s the recipient’s responsibility to safely identify that opportunity.
Now I’m wondering. Suppose the texted-to driver had been seriously injured or killed in the accident. Would the ruling still be the same? If you know the person you are texting is driving while answering, or even has the habit of answering while driving, what kind of a friend are you to keep sending them text. And why the heck don’t you have life insurance on them?
Even if you do send 5 messages to him while he’s driving and responding, unless he specifically says that he’s driving you still wouldn’t know.
I think it would be irresponsible to keep texting someone who says “can’t talk now, driving” and most people would not continue – maybe there is some claim to damages against the texter in the situation that the texting continues.