SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
According to the latest figures available, US highway deaths increased by more than 10 percent year-over-year during the first half of 2016. One big reason? Distracted driving with mobile phones. It's a reality that now has one phone-maker in some unusual legal crosshairs.
Apple, maker of the ever-popular iPhone, is being sued on allegations that its FaceTime app contributed to the highway death of a 5-year-old girl named Moriah Modisette. In Denton County, Texas, on Christmas Eve 2014, a man smashed into the Modisette family's Toyota Camry as it stopped in traffic on southbound Interstate 35W. Police say that the driver was using the FaceTime application and never saw the brake lights ahead of him. In addition to the tragedy, father James, mother Bethany, and daughter Isabella all suffered non-fatal injuries during the crash two years ago.
The Modisette family now wants Apple to pay damages for the mishap. The family alleges the Cupertino, California-based technology company had a duty to warn motorists against using the app and that it could have used patented technology to prohibit drivers from utilizing the app. According to the suit (PDF) filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court:
Plaintiffs allege APPLE, INC.'s failure to design, manufacture, and sell the Apple iPhone 6 Plus with the patented, safer alternative design technology already available to it that would automatically lock-out or block users from utilizing APPLE, INC.'s 'FaceTime' application while driving a motor vehicle at highway speed, and failure to warn users that the product was likely to be dangerous when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner and/or instruct on the safe usage of this and similar applications, rendered the Apple iPhone 6 defective when it left defendant APPLE, INC's possession, and were a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs' injuries and decedent's death.
The patent referenced, issued by the US patent office in April 2014, is designed to provide a "lock-out mechanism" to prevent iPhone use by drivers. The patent claims a "motion analyzer" and a "scenery analyzer" help prevent phone use. The reliability of such lock-out services, however, has come into question.
"The motion analyzer can detect whether the handheld computing device is in motion beyond a predetermined threshold level. The scenery analyzer can determine whether a holder of handheld computing device is located within a safe operating area of a vehicle. And the lock-out mechanism can disable one or more functions of the handheld computing device based on output of the motion analyzer, and enable the one or more functions based on output of the scenery analyzer," according to the patent.
Apple has not commented on the lawsuit, but it has said that drivers are responsible for their behavior.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Friday January 06 2017, @02:49PM
It may leave a bad taste in my mouth, but I have to agree with Apple in this case.
The idiotic notion that Apple should have [x] is completely wrong in my opinion. If they had utilized the patent, then this idiot could have easily done the same thing trying to figure out what was wrong with his phone, or been occupied trying to circumvent the tech. Bottom line: clueless driver not paying attention while driving...Period. Mistakenly entitled morons!
It is also wrong(IMO) for the victim's family to go after Apple for this. This type of behavior only enables and encourages the lack of personal responsibility problem by trying to shift the blame to Apple.
Nothing will bring back the child, so at least 'get it right' with the rest.
'Hurray for me, and fsck you!', seems to be the new attitude, apparently. Now get off my lawn!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday January 06 2017, @03:18PM
I understand the plaintiff lawyer's reasoning here: I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they sued the driver first only to discover that he was broke and thus judgment-proof. The family, understandably upset because they lost their 5-year-old child, asked their lawyer if there was somebody else to go after for some kind of compensation.
If I had to hazard a guess, the reason the family sued Apple rather than the driver was that they had good reason to believe the driver was judgment-proof whereas Apple wasn't, and if the legal costs would be high enough then Apple would be likely to offer a settlement rather than fight it out in court. Also, because the plaintiffs are very sympathetic, jurors might be inclined to side with the plaintiffs even if legally they're wrong.
That said, Apple should win the case:
1. There's no way to ban drivers from using the app without also banning passengers on any mode of transportation from using the app, and passengers should be able to use the app.
2. The person who made the decision to use the app was plainly the driver. Putting a warning screen up that everyone clicks "OK" through without reading it would have made no difference.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday January 06 2017, @03:40PM
Nice reply.
I follow the reasoning you ascribe to the family, and I also figure that is the case here. Heck, if I was in the parent's shoes, I might even try the same thing out of grief and anger.(I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like, and no telling how I would react. I would hope to aspire to my beliefs/principles, but having your child murdered just because of some inattentive, clueless, self-entitled moron messing with his phone? Yep, hard to say how I would react...)
But that does not change my mind that it would still be wrong and misplaced, IMO, as I commented above. :-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday January 06 2017, @04:11PM
A: The driver should be insured.
B: For the instances where A is false, this why you carry an Uninsured Motorist policy on your own car insurance.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday January 06 2017, @04:39PM
I agree both of those *should* be true, but it's quite possible neither of them were: There are lots of people who leave off UM coverage to try and save a few bucks if their state doesn't require it.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday January 06 2017, @06:58PM
Texas, like California and many other states requires basic liability coverage. In Texas the current minimum liability limits are $30,000 for each injured person, up to a total of $60,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage per accident.
My guess is the offending driver is likely young (under 30). So does not have any equity in any real property, and what he does have is in lien. Therefore he carries the basic minimum liability insurance in order to get a licence and register his car. The families lawyers are looking for deeper pockets. Apple is a big target.
I wonder if they have looked also at the other person (or persons) involved in the FaceTime conversation? Seems to me there may be some culpability here where this person is engaging in conversation with a person obviously blasting down the road.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:36AM
Wow. Those limits are a sick joke.