Advertisement
Find a Car
Go!

If You Send A Text To A Driver, Can You Go To Jail If He Crashes? (UPDATED)

Follow Richard

Text message

Text message

Enlarge Photo

UPDATED: See below

Today, most states have laws that limit the use of cell phones while driving. In 38 states, it's illegal to text and drive, and in 31, there are laws about making and taking calls behind the wheel.

And yet, distracted driving remains a major problem: in 2010, it accounted for over 3,000 fatalities in the U.S., or nearly 10% of the total.

But here's an interesting question: if you're sitting at home, and you text a friend who's driving, are you at fault if that friend has an accident while reading your text message?

As weird as it sounds, that's the case being made in a New Jersey court by Stephen "Skippy" Weinstein.

On September 21, 2009, Mr. Weinstein's clients -- David and Linda Kubert -- were riding a motorcycle when Kyle Best's pickup drifted into the opposite lane and struck them. The Kuberts suffered some grisly injuries, including amputations.

Best admitted in municipal court that he was distracted by a text message during the crash. He pleaded guilty to using a hand-held cellphone while driving, careless driving, and failure to maintain a lane. He was fined $775 and sentenced to community service.

But of course, the Kuberts are suing. And throughout the proceedings, Weinstein has insisted that some blame for the accident should be placed on the shoulders of Shannon Colonna, who sent the text message to Best.

Colonna's lawyer has asked judge David Rand to dismiss her from the lawsuit. However, Rand refused to do so, and has said that he'll issue a ruling on Colonna's culpability next week.

Guilty or no?

We may not be attorneys, but we've picked up anything from watching years of Law and Order, it's that you should never assume a verdict will come out exactly as expected.

So, like others watching this case, we'll wait patiently for Rand's ruling. But we'll be awfully surprised if he says that Colonna is in any way responsible for the Kuberts' troubles.

For starters, the sequence of events is a little muddy. Best said that he looked down at Colonna's text message just before the crash, but evidence indicates that, in fact, he may have been the last one to send a message that fateful day.

More importantly, Colonna wasn't at the wheel, nor was she physically in the car. As the Daily Record points out, a passenger can occasionally be held responsible for a collision if that passenger encourages the driver to do unsafe or illegal things. Weinstein argues that Colonna was "electronically present" at the time of the collision, but that seems like a stretch. The area might've been a bit grayer if they were talking on the phone, but that wasn't the case. 

Our take

This is the kind of story that makes us sad, because there can never be a winner.

The Kuberts' lives have been changed forever. Best has admitted fault, and has to live with the consequences of his actions for the rest of his days. And even if Colonna is acquitted -- and we have a hunch she will be -- she'll have to live with her guilt, too.

America's increasingly litigious culture has taken a disturbing turn over the past couple of decades, with scores of defendants relying on what Alan Dershowitz famously dubbed "the abuse excuse". Weinstein's argument doesn't quite fall into that category, but it's similar in that it does try to blame someone other than the perpetrator of the criminal act.

Weinstein is probably just trying to score more cash for his clients (and himself), by following that age-old rule: "sue everyone". But doing so absolves Best of responsibility. From where we sit: Best is guilty, he's said that he's guilty, let it rest.

Do you think Colonna -- or any text-message sender -- should be found guilty in cases like this? Have a look at the ABC news story below, then drop us a line or leave a comment.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

UPDATED: According to CBS New York, Judge Rand has ruled on this matter, agreeing with most of you that the driver alone carries the burden of responsibility, not the text-message sender. In a statement, Rand said, "We expect more of our drivers. We expect more of the people who are given the right and the privilege to operate vehicles on our highways."

It's not immediately clear if the Kuberts will appeal the decision.

[via Cnet]

Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (10)
  1. A driver cannot prevent someone from SENDing an email (or calling) but he can ignore the cell phone or turn it off. We may soon see an attempt to mandate that new cars are somehow blocked from receiving such calls, which would handicap the passengers unless that blanket could be zoned to the driver position only.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

  2. Let add that there is no way for the law to punish the caller unless it can be established that she knew the other party was driving at the time.
    Having a cell phone with Caller ID made it possible for me (in business) to ignore the phone when driving and latter calling the ID person to see what the call was about.
    I even sometimes yelled at my wife/kids to shut up when traffic was particularly crowded nasty. It pays to scan thru the windows for the car ahead for brake lights and to watch what is going around in nearby lanes. Hard to do when listening in a conversation even off-line.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

  3. Really? Seriously? The absurdity of this is mind-boggling. Need I say more?
     
    Post Reply
    +3
    Bad stuff?

     
  4. you, sir, are ridiculous!
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. People just need to take ownership of their own actions, stop trying to always point the finger and have a lawsuit for everything.
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

  6. The legal system needs to place a much greater emphasis on personal responsibility and treat issues like this like the absurdities that they are.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

  7. How is anyone to know what the person is doing when they receive your text? Or when that person might choose to read your text? This is preposterous . . like saying a writer or singer is responsible for the reactions of someone when they listen to a song! Looks like yet another chance for some lawyers to rack up billable hours!
     
    Post Reply
    +3
    Bad stuff?

     
  8. I am not impressed with the judge in this case who did not toss out the claim, unless he is anticipating making a very reasonable precedent, that "No, you absolutely cannot hold the sender of a message liable for the circumstances under which it is read."
    In that case, bravo for the judge.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. i will move out of this country if that girl is charged for anything i cant belive the ignorance of people
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  10. It's really sad. I really feel for those victims. I'd prefer to see a stronger sentence for those who violate the law. Going after the sender of the text is just removing the responsibility of the guilty party.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Try My Showroom
Save cars, write notes, and comparison shop with hi-res photos.
Add your first car
Advertisement
Take Us With You!
   
Advertisement

More From High Gear Media


 
 
© 2014 The Car Connection. All Rights Reserved. The Car Connection is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.