"Parents' lawsuit claims FaceTime caused daughter's death"

Forums › Off topic › "Parents' lawsuit claims FaceTime caused daughter's death"

kingdragonfly

2200 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1306

# 208693 23-Feb-2017 07:37

I'm sure everyone already knows.

It's not mentioned in the article, but Texas is one of the last states which still allows motorists to use their cellphones while driving.

Also forgotten:what about people using a bus / train?

"A Texas family claims that because the driver of a car that crashed into theirs, killing their daughter, was on FaceTime, Apple should pay."

"The SUV hit them from behind. It was going 65 mph.

It went up, onto and over the Modisette family's Toyota Camry on Interstate 35, north of Dallas.

James Modisette, who was driving, was critically injured. His five-year-old daughter, Moriah, sitting behind him, died of her injuries.

These are some of the details of a lawsuit filed just before Christmas in Santa Clara, California. Why there? The defendant is Apple.

The Modisettes claim that the accident, which happened in December 2014, occurred because the other driver was using FaceTime on his iPhone 6 Plus. According to the Denton Record-Chronicle, the driver of the SUV, 22-year-old Garrett Edward Wilhelm, admitted to police that he was on the phone at the time of the crash.

How, though, could Apple be responsible? The Modisettes say that Apple failed to 'install and implement the safer, alternative design [...] to 'lock out' the ability of drivers to utilize the 'FaceTime' application on the Apple iPhone while driving a motor vehicle.'"

CNet - by Chris Matyszczyk

https://www.cnet.com/news/parents-sue-apple-claim-facetime-cause-of-daughters-death-in-crash/

1 | 2

4519 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2627

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724844 23-Feb-2017 07:57

7 people support this post

No this is not Apples fault but a knuckle head stupid driver

Linux

Item

1040 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Subscriber

# 1724845 23-Feb-2017 08:04

4 people support this post

On the surface it seems ludicrous.

Why not also sue the car manufacturer for making the car, the local council for making the road on which cars can crash into each other, the negligent driver's parents for giving birth to the man in the first place and heck - why not McDonalds too for ensuring the man had sufficient sustenance during his lifetime to survive long enough to kill their daughter?

It might well be however that this has a deeper reasoning related to the thorny processes around liability and insurance payouts etc in the US - I understand this a mess and was the reason for the recent case in which a woman ended up suing her own 3 year old niece (I think) for causing her to trip and fall at home and break her leg.

Dunno - just speculating here. If indeed the parents believe that Apple should be genuinely culpable here then I suppose people can behave erratically under duress and grief and maybe we give them some slack?

...or they might just be morons.

MikeB4

13899 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6647

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1724846 23-Feb-2017 08:10

One person supports this post

In some way I see their point. Car manufacturers are required to put in many safety features to protect passengers and drivers, they are also required to put in safety features to protect pedestrians. So why not other devices that can be used in cars? If they won this case it will (in the USA) open a hornets nest.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

Jas777

573 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 46

# 1724847 23-Feb-2017 08:12

Does that mean you could sue God for letting a family member die of a disease?

tripp

3261 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 871

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724848 23-Feb-2017 08:13

2 people support this post

Because apple has a lot more money than the dumb a** driver

MikeB4

13899 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6647

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1724850 23-Feb-2017 08:17

One person supports this post

There needs to be more done about the use of phones while driving. We have a SUV so can see into cars easily, one of my sons drives a truck and has a better view. The number of drivers we see talking and holding phones or texting is alarming, many of which are not driving at all well while doing so. The message just is not getting through.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

Linux

4519 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2627

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724851 23-Feb-2017 08:18

One person supports this post

MikeB4:
In some way I see their point. Car manufacturers are required to put in many safety features to protect passengers and drivers, they are also required to put in safety features to protect pedestrians. So why not other devices that can be used in cars? If they won this case it will (in the USA) open a hornets nest.

So then the mobile carrier is to blame as well for providing coverage so FaceTime could actually work

I don't see your logic sorry

Linux

frankv

2746 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1326

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724852 23-Feb-2017 08:19

2 people support this post

The American legal system at its finest.

The lawyer for the plaintiff, who I assume will be on a goodly percentage of the takings, in pursuit of happiness and the American dream, via cash. So he sues everyone he can think of, especially rich corporations, in the hope that they will settle out of court just to avoid the hassle.

Linux

4519 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2627

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724856 23-Feb-2017 08:23

Read the post above this one and that is the reason why folks

Linux

trig42

Banana?
4716 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1201

Subscriber

# 1724861 23-Feb-2017 08:31

MikeB4:

There needs to be more done about the use of phones while driving. We have a SUV so can see into cars easily, one of my sons drives a truck and has a better view. The number of drivers we see talking and holding phones or texting is alarming, many of which are not driving at all well while doing so. The message just is not getting through.

Agreed. The penalties are not harsh enough. That goes for speeding and other driving offences as well.

I see people on their phones every day on my evening crawl down the motorway. Anecdotally, usually tradies actually on their phones. Probably a lot more people texting etc. that I can't see.

MikeB4

13899 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6647

Trusted

Subscriber

# 1724862 23-Feb-2017 08:31

Linux:
MikeB4:
In some way I see their point. Car manufacturers are required to put in many safety features to protect passengers and drivers, they are also required to put in safety features to protect pedestrians. So why not other devices that can be used in cars? If they won this case it will (in the USA) open a hornets nest.

So then the mobile carrier is to blame as well for providing coverage so FaceTime could actually work

I don't see your logic sorry

Linux

I am not saying I agree with it I am saying if car manufacturers are required to put in protection for people out side the car and inside then why not phone, radio manufacturers etc.

Mike
Retired IT Manager.
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

Using empathy takes no energy and can gain so much. Try it.

afe66

1976 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 744

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724894 23-Feb-2017 09:12

trig42:
MikeB4:

There needs to be more done about the use of phones while driving. We have a SUV so can see into cars easily, one of my sons drives a truck and has a better view. The number of drivers we see talking and holding phones or texting is alarming, many of which are not driving at all well while doing so. The message just is not getting through.

Agreed. The penalties are not harsh enough. That goes for speeding and other driving offences as well.

I see people on their phones every day on my evening crawl down the motorway. Anecdotally, usually tradies actually on their phones. Probably a lot more people texting etc. that I can't see.

I agree the penalties should be harsher, much harsher but then I think speeding fines should be too but queue the cries of its just revenue raising.

Show us the evidence it's dangerous, but I'm a better driver / texted than average driver /

A.

Paul1977

2648 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

# 1724897 23-Feb-2017 09:20

One person supports this post

The lawyer is most likely an ambulance chaser who approached the family with the idea.

Behodar

6557 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1278

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 1724918 23-Feb-2017 09:35

2 people support this post

kingdragonfly: The Modisettes say that Apple failed to 'install and implement the safer, alternative design [...] to 'lock out' the ability of drivers to utilize the 'FaceTime' application on the Apple iPhone while driving a motor vehicle.'"

And how exactly is the phone supposed to magically know that you're driving?

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user

# 1724925 23-Feb-2017 09:40

MikeB4:

There needs to be more done about the use of phones while driving. We have a SUV so can see into cars easily, one of my sons drives a truck and has a better view. The number of drivers we see talking and holding phones or texting is alarming, many of which are not driving at all well while doing so. The message just is not getting through.

When you are next to these drivers give a good blast on the horn! especially your son, those trucks have better horns.

I know an ambo that will get in behind and turn the sirens on and blast the air horns.

1 | 2