Should cell carriers be held liable for punitive damages, for deaths due to cell phone use while driving?

Question

People have successfully sued bartenders, clubs, and even homeowners for serving people and then letting them drive drunk, and then that driver kills someone in an accident. We've also punished cigarette companies for knowingly promoting the use of a product that leads to death.

Isn't it time for people to begin holding cell carriers liable for deaths due to the use of their product while in a moving vehicle?

It's technically possible for them to prevent it. Cell phones are periodically pinging for the closest tower to establish a connection and constantly checking signal strength, so they can easily determine whether you are standing still or on the move. And, like tobacco companies, they clearly know that all the new features and gadgets (distractions) will be used in vehicles.

I believe in personal responsibility. But if it was OK to sue tobacco companies, bartenders, gun makers, etc., aren't cell carriers equally liable and negligent for their products' misuse?

___________________

You might not be aware that, in much of Europe, it is ILLEGAL to use a cell phone in a vehicle.

This is because they've done several studies that proved that cell phone users were more dangerous on the roads than people who were legally DRUNK. That's right. Cell phone users are shown to be WORSE drivers than DRUNKS!!!

And anyone who's driven behind someone on a cell phone knows this too. Weaving in lane, poor speed control, no signals, late braking, oblivious to other drivers.

If we aggressively pursue drunk drivers, we should be aggressively pursuing drivers distracted by cell phone use.

And, BTW, studies have shown listening to radios, even singing along, is much more passive and non-distracting.

Kids in the back seat are another matter. Curiously enough, it wasn't as much a problem when kids could sit up front.

Answer 1

I actually had to think about this one before posting , but since its unreasonable to expect cell carriers to be able to tell if a user is driving a car while talking, then they should not be held liable for the misdeeds of those who use cell phones in this manner. But having recently come close to being nailed by a teenager with a cell phone at the exit from her school at 3:00 PM, I wholeheartedly support criminal penalties for use of a cell phone while driving, and this would be halfway easy for a cop to spot visually. In short I would make this one primarily the responsibility of law enforcement rather than the cell carriers.

But realistically its a matter of time before some sharp lawyer makes the argument that cell carriers can triangulate the location of their customers phones from the signal strength you mentioned and can thus determine is the cell phone is somehow moving at typical automobile speeds.

Answer 2

No.
It's easy to be caught in the trap that it's someone else's fault, but this is all on the driver and the driving circumstances.

I think more states will make it illegal to use a cell phone and drive, but the onus comes on the person choosing to use the cell, in whatever manner, NOT on the manufacturer of the cell phone.

I am not sure that there have been any awards won for gun manufacturers. Tobacco companies were sued for misleading the public (but I also think that there is personal responsibility, not the fault of the tobacco company).

Bar tenders/servers are a little different because they can theoreticaly see the person who is becoming drunk, and should call a cab or make sure that a person has a designated driver. The next step will to give every patron a 2 or 3 drink limit depending on your body mass index.... or some sort of weirdness.

Turn off your phone when you are in the car if you are so conditioned to always answer it when it texts or rings. Being a driver is not a right, it's a privelege, and we all must remember that when we are behind the wheel that we have the responsibility to keep people safe who are in our car, as well as around us.

Answer 3

So, what you're saying is that cell carriers are liable for car accidents because the cell phones work in cars? I think that's a stretch.

If your proposal is valid, then wouldn't the manufacturer of any product that distracts you in a car also be liable if there is an accident because of the use of that product while driving? I'm talking about car stereos and CD players. What about driving around with a small child - no cell phone is ever that distracting.

I think that the line between personal liability and the liability of a manufacturer has to be drawn somewhere.

Oh, and by the way, who do think makes all the money from lawsuits against tobacco companies, gun manufacturers, etc? Certainly not the plaintiffs - the LAWYERS get 30% off the top of a class action suit.

I don't believe that we need another justification to make lawyers rich. Just hang up the phone and drive.

:edit:
Regarding car stereos & CD players - I was talking about playing with the settings, looking for a station, etc. - anything that takes your eyes off the road - not just singing along.

Answer 4

Negeshia, i do know you might have held a mobilephone between your ear & shoulder. I can force with both leg too. Proficient, huh? I've additionally noticed a scramble to search out methods to divert convos. With these new Walkie-Talkies. On account that they've so many versions in channels and privateness lovck-out features there's a rush to crack the freqs. These operate on. I do know that i will be able to intercept mobile phones, cordless telephones, and some other air carried convos. A couple of phones have gotten above this field but it will not be long earlier than i will find them also. It can be a matter of choice. But, whatever that diverts full concentration from traffic should be unlawful.If you've ever witnessed a cop slide right via a discontinue sign on an icy evening you'll be able to recognize they're sick-geared up to hold manage with 2 hands a lot much less 1. I LMAO everytime I come to a discontinue within the suitable distance from the intersection whilst observing a cop lock the brakes up and sliding three/4 of thew manner through it. Oh good, these laws do not observe to them, huh???? I'm nonetheless wondering why they're allowed contraband and the publi8c is not????

Answer 5

You are confusing the issues. Serving alcohol to an already visible drunk is completely different. The bartender must ensure the safety of a customer when the the person is not able to. they use the "reasonable person" guideline. Also, it was proven that Tobacco companies withheld vital information that the public should have in order to make an informaed decision to smoke or not. However, with cell phones, you are talking about someone making a decision who is not impaired, the decision being, do I use my cell phone and be distracted. Even if it takes a split second to decide, they still decide. This is parallel to teenagers suing McDonald's for getting fat. How much responsibility are you supposed to take for your own actions? I understand what you are saying, but you have to exercise personal responsibility and not blame everything on someone or something else.
based on your logic, we should then sue nintendo for the DS and gameboy, Sony for the PSP, all fast food restuarants for making us eat while we drive, causing us to spill on our lap;
we should also sue all the companies that make radios for our cars-that distracts us while we change the channel. See what I'm getting at?

Answer 6

Or Ford Motors for killing people who drive drunk...
Or Jim Beam for forcing you to develop a bad liver...
People need to realize that what they do may have
unintended consequences . You stick your hand in the lion's cage, be prepared to earn a new nickname: Lefty.
Your statement about suing bartenders, gun makers is true- BUT- how many have successfully collected anything?
One thing all these products have in common: they are all legal.
OK_ make that two things- if someone misuses their product-
bad things can happen, not the fault of the product.

Damm- long-winded way of saying NO.

Answer 7

Yeah and we should sue the gun makers for every death caused by a shooting. Get real! If you want something done about cell phone use while driving, contact your state representative about introducing legislation making it illegal to talk and drive (many states already have this). And if a person talks and drives and wrecks and kills someone, they are personally liable and either they or their insurance company will be ordered to pay for damages.

Answer 8

Absoutely not. People should take responsibilty for their own actions. Just because tabacco companies, bartenders, gun makers etc were sued successfully still doesn't make it right. We're becoming a nation of shifting the blame on others for our own actions. Good luck. 2D

Answer 9

I agree. Anyone who has almost been nailed, or stuck behind a cell phone user has to acknowlege that it is irresponsible to use one while you drive.

Such drivers are willingly neglegent, and damage done as a result should be criminal.

(Several years ago, in California, it was suggested that anyone caught driving drunk be charged with attemped homicide. Went straight down the tubes, but there was certainly a logic to it.)

Answer 10

Yes it will make for fine new American tradition of not having to accept responsbility for your actions. This will be great it will even be better than those two fat girls who sued Mcdondalds for making them fat. Sueing and not accepting responibility 2 American past times which basball has nothing on.