Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday January 27 2017, @07:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-need-a-Snapchat-filter-filter dept.

A judge in the U.S. state of Georgia has dismissed a lawsuit against Snapchat Inc. (also known as Snap, Inc.) regarding its eponymous photo and video sharing app. The plaintiffs, who were injured in a two-car crash, claimed that the driver of the other car, in the words of CBS News,

[...] was trying to reach 100 mph on a highway south of Atlanta when her car hit theirs [...]

[...] while [she was] using a Snapchat filter that puts the rate at which a vehicle is traveling over an image.

The judge cited (Wikipedia link added by submitter)

[...] the immunity clause of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

As reported by WGCL-TV, a CBS affiliate in Atlanta, a motion filed by the company (PDF) asserted that the driver whose car collided with the plaintiffs' car "was not using the Snapchat application at the time of the collision" (quoted from the court filing, with emphasis removed).

Additional coverage:

Related stories:
The Company Formerly Known as Snapchat may be Worth $25 Billion
Goodbye Snapchat, Hello Snap Inc


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by bob_super on Friday January 27 2017, @08:20PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 27 2017, @08:20PM (#459695)

    Every app will now demand access to your accelerometers, location and full internet, just so it can track you for the purposes of dismissing lawsuits.
    They'll pinky-swear that they won't use the collected data for other reasons ... until version 0.9.3.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday January 27 2017, @08:55PM

    by edIII (791) on Friday January 27 2017, @08:55PM (#459703)

    Why? Snapchat won this round handily. Putting the speed over the image is pretty damn stupid, but then again, so are in-app purchases in Candy Fuck My Wallet Crush.

    I'm not surprised. There are an awful lot of impending Darwin Awards out there waiting to happen. Some people are just dreadfully stupid and on the road too, and behind large machinery. Inside work, outside work, you name it.

    Just because Snapchat can be seen as enabling stupidity, does not remove the liability away from the driver. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Likewise, Snapchat doesn't kill people, fucking morons kill themselves.

    The lawyer just searched for the first deep pockets he could find, and probably on contingency. The only deep pockets he can go after are the Darwin Award's insurance carrier's pockets. That's what they are they for. As contracted, and paid for, under law and plenty of regulations.

    There are umpteenmillion different vendors and whatnot involved in the technology that people keep on themselves. It's impossible to hold them accountable for the stupidity of the users. If the people on this site really know *anything*, it's how stupid users can be.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday January 27 2017, @09:06PM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Friday January 27 2017, @09:06PM (#459709)

      I'm not surprised. There are an awful lot of impending Darwin Awards out there waiting to happen. Some people are just dreadfully stupid and on the road too, and behind large machinery. Inside work, outside work, you name it.

      The problem here is the person killed wasn't the snapchat user. The asshole being a hazard rear ended her car and survived. Unfortunately, the darwin award wasn't handed out for this as the victim was an innocent bystander.

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM

        by edIII (791) on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM (#459723)

        That's not how I meant it. The driver is the impending Darwin Award, and yes, there was an innocent victim that got killed.

        Still, going after a company that made and supported technology the asshole was using is wrong. You go after the asshole, put them in jail, and then the victim's next of kin can sue the fuck out them civilly AND go after the insurance carrier for every single penny the insurance carrier promised on the policy.

        Considering that it should be well known and agreed how stupid the asshole was (The impending Darwin Award), I don't see how the insurance carrier is going to realistically defend themselves at all. This is the policy claim that should just be paid out, but insurance carriers always fight tooth and nail to limit payouts on policies. Otherwise they don't make the profit the greedy fucks at the top demand.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:08PM (#459710)

      And here's why plaintiff's lawyers went looking for a deep pocket,
          http://www.all-about-car-accidents.com/resources/insurance-law/car-insurance/georgia-auto-insurance- [all-about-car-accidents.com]
      From that page,

      Georgia is a “Fault” Car Insurance State

      Georgia follows a “fault” system when it comes to issues like liability and insurance coverage after a car accident. This means that an at-fault driver is liable for any personal injury or property damage resulting from the accident, and his or her insurance policy will be looked to first in order to satisfy this liability. In Georgia, a person injured in an auto accident can look for compensation for damages in one of three ways:

              by filing a claim with his or her own insurance company (the company will then turn around and seek compensation from the at-fault driver’s insurer)
              by pursuing a claim with the other driver’s insurer directly (sometimes called a “third party” claim), or
              by filing a personal injury lawsuit in civil court (especially if settlement negotiations break down)
      ...
      Georgia law requires that the owner of a motor vehicle carry liability insurance on that vehicle. The minimum liability coverage a driver is required to carry in Georgia looks like this:

              $25,000 for the injury or death of one person (yourself, a passenger, another driver, pedestrian, etc.)
              $50,000 for the injury or death of more than one person in a single accident
              $25,000 for property damage
      ...

      Not much if there is serious injury (assuming the 100 mph idiot only had minimum required insurance).

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM (#459721) Journal

        We have a winner!

        A traumatic brain injury will easily eat up well more than 50K, especially if you factor reduced income potential into the mix.

        It is also notable that his insurance company may have insisted that he file suit against snapchat. It isn't at al;l unusual for insurance to delay or refuse to pay out if the victim isn't "cooperative" with their efforts to recover damages from other parties.

      • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM

        by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 27 2017, @09:45PM (#459722) Journal

        And there is the real problem: ludicrously low requirements on liability coverage in most states.

        In the UK, traditionally, policies had no limit, but now it's commonly limited to £20M for damage to property, following a £22M claim due to the Great Heck rail crash. [wikipedia.org] Policies still usually have no limit for injury and death claims.

        --
        lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 27 2017, @10:52PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 27 2017, @10:52PM (#459744)

          I remember hearing about that crash, and wondering how far I'd roll my eyes if that amount of worst-case coincidences were in a Hollywood movie.
          For those who didn't read the wiki link:
            - tired guy swerves of the highway with his car+trailer as he was approaching a bridge over tracks
            - he misses the hard rail, goes down the embankment through a wooden fence
            - car, which is a Land Rover, won't move off the tracks. Guy gets out, calls the cops immediately
            - commuter train arrives right then, hits the car, derails but stays upright
            - coal train coming the other way slams into derailed commuter train, killing 10 and injuring 82

          The story doesn't say if he ever bought a lottery ticket.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday January 27 2017, @11:03PM

            by edIII (791) on Friday January 27 2017, @11:03PM (#459747)

            The entire time reading that I was imagining Scrat from Ice Age. It escalates quickly.

            Only thing missing is a fireball taking out a hovering helicopter.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 27 2017, @10:37PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 27 2017, @10:37PM (#459741)

      > Why? Snapchat won this round handily

      TFS: the company (PDF) asserted that the driver whose car collided with the plaintiffs' car "was not using the Snapchat application at the time of the collision.

      That's why. My point is that anyone making any app is now strongly incentivized to track you in order to dismiss frivolous lawsuits. That's how they won. If the customer tracking data doesn't show what you want, it's "inherently unreliable". It is does, it's "clear evidence". In both cases, it's now a saleable company asset.

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:32AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday January 28 2017, @02:32AM (#459791) Homepage
      > It's impossible to hold them accountable for the stupidity of the users

      unless they encourage it.

      would a "Drink Bacardi Rum, then go and drive down to the beach" advert be legal where you are? I'm guessing not, as it's encouraging illegal behaviour. Of course, you could only have half a shot in half a litre of coke, so it's not **necesarily* illegal, but still, the implication's there. How's this "drive fast!!!!" app any different?
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves