Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
Judges in NJ say texting to another who is driving, can make the text sender liable if the driver crashes into people?!
So now we know why ARs like New Jersey. They can convince the people there of anything, no matter how stupid?! This is Animal Rights “LOGIC..”
,,,”Each of the Kuberts lost a leg in the crash, and they sued both Best and Colonna seeking damages. A state superior court judge nixed their aiding and abetting claim against Colonna last year, and an appeal followed. Best, meanwhile, settled the civil case against him by tendering the $500,000 limit of his auto insurance.”
In oral arguments on Monday, attorney Stephen “Skippy” Weinstein, who represents the Kuberts, said the court should impose a duty of care on those who know the recipient is both behind the wheel and likely to be reading texts while driving. Best and Colonna exchanged 62 texts during a several-hour period before the crash, the newspaper says.
However, Joseph McGlone, who represents Colonna, said she is not responsible for his misconduct, according to the Daily Record and the Star-Ledger:
“My client doesn’t know he’s driving, she doesn’t know his schedule. She cannot control when Kyle Best reads the message,” McGlone told the three-judge Appellate Division panel.
“Other than not to send it to begin with, if she knows he’s driving,” Judge Michael A. Guadagno responded to McGlone.
Another member of the panel also appeared open to the novel theory:
“The question for us is, how do we write up that duty so it is applied the right way?” said Judge Victor Ashrafi.
In response to an argument by McGlone that Best had been distracted by the text message he just sent to Colonna, not by her message to him, Ashrafi said: “But for her sending the text to him, he wouldn’t be looking down.”
PD: It is a known legal premise in tort law– “but for” X then Y …indicating proximate cause…….however, it’s pretty far fetched, as correctly indicated by the “comments” on the ABA blog, and common sense, to believe that the one sending the text messages is at fault for the driver READING the text messages, period, much less anything else.
We can just see the ARs claiming it is the buyer 1 who buys dog breed X that is responsible for owner Y’s mauling because but for buyer 1 having bought dog breed X, the owner Y would not be harmed.
This is not so far fetched re AR non logic, because even NOW ARs are claiming that the selling of commercial kennel dogs (which is legal) is now ILLEGAL if done by a commercial business (like a pet store) BECAUSE they claim there are purported “puppymills” in existence?
This is the ultimate in nonsensical (and unconstitutional) laws. Maybe we should outlaw cell phones because people text while driving? and kill people? Maybe we should outlaw guns and matches? Maybe we should outlaw cars or trucks? How about baseball bats or knives? How about Facebook? Not liking someone could cause them to kill themselves?
This is why we keep harping on AR logic. They don’t have any logic and apparently neither do the Judges in New Jersey who decided this nonsensical case.