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: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @09:02PM
Pintos, Mavericks, and Crown Victorias, I believe, were all known at various times for exploding after being rear-ended. I'm reminded of Nader's crusades against various vehicles, including the Chevy Corvair with it's rear engine. That auto industry has been subjected to many lawsuits regarding negligence.
http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2013/04/28/bookshelf-unsafe-at-any-speed-by-ralph-nader/ [macsmotorcitygarage.com]
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday January 06 2017, @10:35PM
Yeah, but these are negligent designs or dangerous defects. The iPhone is not defective because it just happens to allow a driver to do FaceTime any more than a car is defective because it does not require the driver or passenger to wear a seat belt before starting.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @10:44PM
Well, over time, our definitions of negligence can change. Again - Ralsh Nader changed an entire industry. All it takes are a few attitudes to change, maybe as the result of a couple lawsuits.
This isn't the first time the possibility of disabling a driver's cell phone has been discussed, after all. We recognize that a lot of damned fools are irresponsible. We've mandated that people wear seatbelts, rightly or wrongly. Why not mandate that a driver's cell phone is disabled for all except emergency phone calls? (911 emergencies, not 1-900 emergencies)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:00AM
Why not mandate that all software be free software while we're at it?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:39AM
Such a mandate can't be demonstrated to make people safer, or to improve the efficacy of the software. To make a case for negligence, there has to be either a valid safety issue, or a demonstrable improvement to efficiency. The fact that I prefer free and open source software doesn't change the need to demonstrate a social benefit before mandating that all software be free and open source.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Monday January 09 2017, @09:13PM
We've mandated that people wear seatbelts.
We've mandated that people don't use cellphones.
My car doesn't refuse to drive if it thinks I don't have my belt on.
Why should my cellphone refuse to operate if it thinks I'm driving?
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:20PM
Actually, briefly back the 70's seatbelt interlocks were required on all cars (I believe trucks were exempt). So a for short period of time, if a new car did start without the driver's seatbelt fastened the car was defective. The law was quickly repealed after a large backlash and I think was only in effect for one model year - 1974 if I remember right.