Court throws out lawsuit blaming lack of texting 'lock-out' technology in iPhone caused ca...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 37
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,822member
    If you kill or injure someone with a vehicle because you were texting or doing anything else with your phone, it needs to be a felony and carry a much harsher sentence. 

    The real story story here is yet another irresponsible driver got away with killing someone. 
    Exactly!!!
  • Reply 22 of 37
    krawallkrawall Posts: 162member
    I think it was great that this lawsuit was filed. I don't think it was stupid. Of course I don't think apple bears any responsibility. 

    How does this fit together?

    As a father and, well, an ex youth, I remember doing really silly things (still doing some) when I was young. Lots of people get killed by texting while driving and many more get injured. 

    I think having a mechanism that can prevent some of these accidents is a very good thing. 

    By filing this lawsuit they raised awareness and it got implemented. That may well have been their ultimate goal. 
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 23 of 37
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    If you kill or injure someone with a vehicle because you were texting or doing anything else with your phone, it needs to be a felony and carry a much harsher sentence. 

    The real story story here is yet another irresponsible driver got away with killing someone. 
    Loss of driver license and mandatory restitution to the family or estate of the one killed would be a good start.
    netmage
  • Reply 24 of 37
    If you kill or injure someone with a vehicle because you were texting or doing anything else with your phone, it needs to be a felony and carry a much harsher sentence. 

    The real story story here is yet another irresponsible driver got away with killing someone. 
    The county DA should loose ones job.  That person isn't doing their job.  Seems like they are more interested in getting the driver-killer off scotfree.  Also seems like the California state government is very soft on text driving murderers.  I have no sympathy for the murderer.

    a person caught texting while driving should be arrested for attempted murder.
    netmage
  • Reply 25 of 37
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,336member
    mnbob1 said:
    iOS 11 includes the new do not disturb while driving. I’ve been using it and I don’t get text message or call alerts while driving. Senders receive a message that I’m driving and I’ll respond when I get to my destination. I can override it but that’s included for passengers. It doesn’t preclude driver stupidity but it helps put up a roadblock that they have to consciously think before texting. Texting and driving by teenagers is a huge problem and it comes back to educating the driver no matter what age.

    Suing the phone maker, carrier, car maker, car phone charging maker, city, etc. isn’t going to bring this man’s or anyone’s loved one back. (Just kidding about all those extras). 

    Obviously Apple had its reasons for waiting to include the feature until iOS 11. Holding it back because of competition is laughable. It’s actually a great feature that I think is a selling point. 
    I am actually surprised that Apple waited this long to include this feature. I have gotten messages from friends of mine that use Android lettting me know that are driving for some time now. 
  • Reply 26 of 37
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    macseeker said:
    irresponsible driver got away with killing someone. 
    The county DA should loose ones job.  That person isn't doing their job.  Seems like they are more interested in getting the driver-killer off scotfree.  Also seems like the California state government is very soft on text driving murderers.  I have no sympathy for the murderer.

    a person caught texting while driving should be arrested for attempted murder.
    You obviously have no critical understanding of law, and certainly not the definition of murder or the concept of meeting the elements of a crime. You're lack of ability for form a coherent sentence only complicates your random thought processes.

    You really need to know more about the facts of the case instead of lining up with idiots on parade and spouting unsupported nonsense.

    Further, I'm certain that were that driver your son, you'd reverse your position in a heartbeat, your ire and outrage notwithstanding. Given your lack of rational thinking, you would not say 'Yes, my son is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly.' You'd probably blame the scooter rider for failing to drive defensively and use the 'My son will have to live with this the rest of his life and has suffered enough' or some such drivel. And you would most certainly hire the best lawyer you could afford. Lawyers— everybody hates them until they need one.

    (No, I'm not a lawyer. They make my job difficult on occasion. Sometimes extremely difficult. I just have to work that much harder. And they also prevent innocent people from suffering under the law. There is much to be said about that.)

    I don't know the sentence of the convicted driver. Charged with a misdemeanor, and lack of intent (look it up) the driver probably got probation and no jail. This is just a guess as like you I know nothing of the case but what's been presented here.

    Educate yourself with the facts of the case first, then try, really try to form an intelligent thought. While I think the driver should have been sentenced to time in jail (one year is the maximum for a misdemeanor conviction) charing him with a felony may not be lawful. Start with Sec 192(c) PC. Please tell me what states would allow a charge of murder (Sec. 187 PC) under these circumstances with their current laws, let alone attempted murder for texting while driving.

    Bear in mind, texting while driving in CA, as in most every state, is only an infraction. At the time of the collision, it probably wasn't even a moving violation, so a ticket (without a collision) would have meant no points on his driving record and no effect on insurance. It took 8 years, far too long, for that to change.

    Got away with something 'scot-free'? No, not really. Should have paid a heavier price? Yes, to the fullest extent of current law, in my opinion. Did he? I don't know.

    Your raging out of glaring ignorance does no one any good and makes you look beyond foolish.


    spheric
  • Reply 27 of 37
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    SpamSandwich said:
    Loss of driver license and mandatory restitution to the family or estate of the one killed would be a good start.
    That wasn't part of the sentencing?
  • Reply 28 of 37
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member

    jcs2305 said:
    mnbob1 said:
    Obviously Apple had its reasons for waiting to include the feature until iOS 11. Holding it back because of competition is laughable. It’s actually a great feature that I think is a selling point. 
    I am actually surprised that Apple waited this long to include this feature. I have gotten messages from friends of mine that use Android lettting me know that are driving for some time now. 
    ??

    Do we know that: 

    a) this is a parental control that can be activated by iCloud
    b) that Dad would have activated it over his son's protests
    c) that the driver would have no control over its implementation
    d) that the driver would have control and would have used it 
    e) that it would use GPS and the accelerometer to automatically start DND when in a car
    f)  that it would know if the user were a driver or passenger in the car and activate accordingly

    Because I don't think we do, and making such assumptions would be rank stupidity. 

    It's a nice idea and no harm in bringing it to iOS. But I'm guessing its use is voluntary. Responsible drivers won't need it; it's a courtesy to a sender to let them know why their text isn't immediately being responded to. A responsible driver would just ignore it without needing a DND option. But then there's responsible and 'responsible'.

    As an aside, I never concern myself with how advanced the Android ecosystem is compared to Apple. I also don't pretend to know why Apple does or doesn't so something and just figure they have reasonable priorities and don't just spin a wheel to see what to pick from the iOS To Do list. I know it's fashionable to say 'so-and-so has done this for years' and 'it's about time!!' But I'm not that fashion conscious and it's ultimately irrelevant.
    lorin schultz
  • Reply 29 of 37
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    sflocal said:
     At the minimum, Apple should (I hope) file for reimbursement of attorney fees. 
    and risk the negative PR. no way is it worth it to Apple
  • Reply 30 of 37
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,905member
    Listen everyone. Here is a class action lawsuit that IOS users can win and make Apple to implement changes. When you handover(gift,sell,etc) your iPhone/iPad; Apple says remove pass-code and delete from iCloud(turn-off Find my iPhone) and complete reset device. Apple's authentication servers also suppose to remove it from the AppleID account. The account where your profile, credit card,Devices stored/linked/associated. But, Apple does not remove it from your Appleid account. The IOS device will work but this creates situation where when you happen to restore your IOS device without first establishing your appleid/passowrd in Settings; it will go into Activation Lock and will ask for previous owners AppleID/password. If you don't have contact of previous owner than you are screwed. Your perfectly working IOS device is brick. Apple won't help you thinking you stole the Device which you know you paid to previous Seller.
    Has this happened to anyone ? I am sure thousands and thousands of users bricked their devices. It happened to me with my iPad so I recreated test scenarios using my two iphone. I deleted my two iphones from icloud, remove passcode, complete reset, remove from itune but both iphones still linger into my appleid account. Why apple not cleanup traces of devices info when removed from icloud and itune ? Does Apple have legal right to keep/hold paid Device's info(association in appleid account) even after user deleting all of his/her credentials ? Please comment with your opinion!!
  • Reply 31 of 37
    macgui said:

    Responsible drivers won't need it; it's a courtesy to a sender to let them know why their text isn't immediately being responded to. A responsible driver would just ignore it without needing a DND option. But then there's responsible and 'responsible'.
    Exactly. You nailed it. The primary benefit is to the person on the other end, not the driver per se. It lets others know that the driver is busy driving.

    For the driver, it does reduce the temptation to sneak a quick peek or "answer just this one real quick" but knowing that a sender has received a reply goes a long way towards reducing FOMO anxiety.
    macgui
  • Reply 32 of 37
    Back before texting people were reading newspapers and looking at very large maps in the car, women put on makeup, some guys I catch shaving while driving, in other words, this is nothing new and humans will always find new ways to be destructed while driving. We are accountable as humans.  What was the boy doing on a scooter?
    Nobody should lose their child
  • Reply 33 of 37
    lmaclmac Posts: 206member
    wizard69 said:
    This is wonderful and frankly I'm surprised a California judge got it right.    If this succeeded and sat a president that somebody else, a manufacture or whomever was in the chain of sales, could be liable for somebody else stupidity would put all products at risk.  
    The word is precedent, as in precedes (comes before).
    edited August 2017
  • Reply 34 of 37
    A California judge has thrown out a suit brought against Apple by the father of a college student killed in a road accident by a texting driver, one where it was claimed Apple had failed to incorporate technology into the iPhone that would prevent it from working while the user is driving.




    Judge Maureen A. Folan of the Santa Clara County Superior Court found on Thursday that plaintiff Craig Riggs, father of victim David Riggs, hadn't adequately pled to the court that Apple bore some responsibility to his son's death. According to Law360, the iPhone suit was tossed with prejudice, preventing a refiling under the same claim in the future.

    David Riggs was killed in 2013 while riding on his scooter to his home in Minnesota, according to the lawsuit, and was hit by a teenager driving a Honda Civic. The teenager was convicted of a misdemeanor, with the suit alleging he was driving while distracted, using his iPhone to send text messages.

    The suit notes that Apple filed for a patent relating to a "lock-out mechanism" for the iPhone in 2008 that would prevent it from performing certain functions while someone was driving, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granting it in 2014. This application was used to claim Apple was well aware of the dangers of texting while driving, and that it was an "unfair business practice" to provide the iPhone without implementing the technology.

    In dismissing the case, Judge Folan refers to the reasoning of the 2016 suit Meador vs Apple, which also rejected theories that Apple was liable. In that case, the court reasoned that the act of sending a text message to an iPhone in motion didn't put anyone in "any real or apparent danger," until the driver "neglected her duty to safely operate her vehicle" by looking at the message, and it was unreasonable to say Apple was "actually responsible for the ultimate harm."

    In the ruling, Judge Folan advised "The chain of causation alleged by the plaintiffs in this case is far too attenuated for a reasonable person to conclude that Apple's conduct is or was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff's harm."

    The issue of texting while driving continues to be an ongoing problem for Apple in the courts. In January, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court by MLG Automotive Law, giving similar arguments that Apple had the technology and the patent, but failed to implemented it "over concerns that it will lose market share to other phone-makers who do not limit consumer use."

    Earlier this month, Apple urged the court to throw out the suit, with Christopher Chorba of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher arguing on behalf of Apple that main plaintiff Julio Ceja was vague about injuries suffered during a texting-related accident he was involved with, and how Apple supposedly caused the injuries.

    Chorba told the court Ceja is not able to establish that his injuries were caused by "anything Apple did or failed to do," and that other courts had considered and rejected similar claims. "To allow a claim of this type to get passed, the pleadings would really reflect an expansive interpretation of causation and it really finds no support in existing case law, asserted Chorba.

    The class-action suit is ongoing, and Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl did not issue a ruling at the time of that hearing.
    If this is allowed then anyone could be sued for NOT implementing patented and patent pending experimental technology.
  • Reply 35 of 37
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    For the driver, it does reduce the temptation to sneak a quick peek or "answer just this one real quick" but knowing that a sender has received a reply goes a long way towards reducing FOMO anxiety.
    I was going to address that but didn't want to sound like the negative so-and sos that always say 'someone will find a way... blah blah'.

    You did so without any such characterization. Excellent points. Well done.
  • Reply 36 of 37
    Frankly, I am quite surprised at this ruling.  Especially in California.  I expect an appeal.  Mostly because I don't see California wanting to set the precedent that manufacturers aren't liable for damages caused by misuse of their manufactured items.
  • Reply 37 of 37
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Mostly because I don't see California wanting to set the precedent that manufacturers aren't liable for damages caused by misuse of their manufactured items.
    That’d only be because there aren’t many sane people in California. Of course manufacturers aren’t liable. If they are, I get to sue parents for the sins of their children.
    beowulfschmidt
Sign In or Register to comment.