Victim’s daughter sues cellphone companies over fatal crash
December 16, 2009 by Fred HosierPosted in: cell phones and safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Lawsuits
PDF Has the cell phone industry done enough to warn customers that it’s dangerous to use the devices and drive at the same time? One woman is taking her opinion to court.
Jennifer Smith is suing Samsung and Sprint Nextel in connection with a car crash that killed her mother. She hopes to prove that the companies should have foreseen the dangers and that they didn’t provide adequate warnings.
Linda Doyle died after her car was hit by a pickup truck driven by Christopher Hill in Oklahoma City on Sept. 3, 2008. Hill told police he was distracted by a cell phone call and ran a red light at 45 miles an hour, hitting Doyle’s car.
Samsung hasn’t commented on the lawsuit. Sprint Nextel “rejects the claims of negligence” and notes that it includes safety messages on packaging and in user manuals on its Web site.
Hill has taken responsibility for the crash, pleading guilty to negligent homicide, a misdemeanor. He doesn’t think the cell phone companies should be blamed.
Hill also admitted that he never read his phone’s manual.
Who is responsible for educating the public about the dangers of using a cell phone while driving? Is it the cell phone companies? Should employers have written policies warning their employees about the hazard while driving on company business? Let us know in the Comments Box below.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: cellphone, distracted driving, lawsuit
Loading ...
December 17th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“Hill has taken responsibility for the crash”. The lawsuit should be thrown out. It’s not the big bad company’s fault.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
This practice has grown to epidemic proportion in the US and am sure in other countries too. As I drive down the roads in my work area as well as outside of it I am constantly reminder of the dangers of cell phone usage during vehicle operation. There is never a day that passes where I see some on driving erradic, slowing down and speeding up or letting the vehicle wonder in their lane, just to find out they are are on the phone and not paying that much attention to what their vehicle or traffic is doing. I for one do not feel that no matter how much information or training you give a person they will still use the phone. State legislation and enforcement against vehicle operator use of cell phones is the only deterant for reducing this epidimic.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Or personal responsiblity and passengers telling the ding dong drivers to put the phone down.
December 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
My condolences for Jennifer Smith… however I feel it’s ridiculous.
What’s next? Ms Smith could sue the State for not teaching defensive driving? How many lives would be saved throughout the US if defensive driving was taught? (One argument)
OR… Christopher Hill could sue Sprint/Nextel for not insuring he read his manual, or explicitly telling him not to use his phone while driving. He’ll now have to go through life with the emotional trauma of taking another persons life, because he was ignorant to the dangers of driving while on the phone…
Hill took responsibility for his own actions and will be punished.
None of it will bring back her mother.
-Gamble
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Whenever there is a tragedy of this magnitude with someone you love or hold in high esteem it causes a natural reaction to point the finger, find fault, and draw blood. I understand this emotional tendency but we have to realize there will always be a few people who do not use equipment as intended, or find other alternatives for use. A vehicle is a mode of transportation but a youngster may be so excited he will do burn outs in a parking lot or drift in the rain because it is exciting. Are we going to hold car makers at fault because a driver decided he wanted to drift on a highway and cause a multi-car pile-up? I’m sorry for this person’s loss but fault lays with the driver not the company.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:43 am
This so reminds me of the case where a lady purchases a hot cup of coffee then spills it on herself. She sued McDonald’s and won because they failed to put a warning label on the cup. Every cell phone company I’ve walked into are pushing the Blue Tooth headphone technology. If this was 20 years ago, I’d say she had a case, but not now.
In those Defensive driving course, they tell you the number one cause of accidents. It’s distracted driver. A distraction could be anything from a cell phone to a bug to someone walking down the street that the driver is attracted to. Would they sue the bug or the pedestrian? I don’t think so.
This is about money. Not about the principle as she tried to indicate.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
I agree with everyone that it is aggravating to see all the oblividiots who cannot even walk and chew gum at the same time, that think they can drive and talk on a phone. The genie is out of the bottle and we will never stop everyone from driving and talking. The use of hands free technology has made it impossible for law enforcement to know if the person is having a phone conversation, is singing along with the radio, moves their lips when they read (road signs, billboards, bumper stickers) or whatever. People will have to make this decision to stop this behavior themselves and since most of us know, that unless they have an accident or a close call. They will never think that they cannot handle it.
As far as the suit goes, it reeks of a lawyer looking for deep pockets. Considering Hill admitted to fault it should not go anywhere. But hey, odder things have been allowed to go to trial, and the plaintiffs have won.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:22 am
Several years ago there was a bad batch of Tylenol that had to be recalled. The CEO of the company immediately stepped up and publicly took responsibility. He didn’t try to deny fault.
Ford and Firestone tires had Ford Broncos flipping over because of the faulty Firestone tires, both companies tried to cover it up, they ignored defective testing and used the tires anyway.
It’s Social Responsibility. Just like putting the warning label on a pack of cigarettes.
The Cell Phone manufacturers should be required to put on the package of each cell phone the hazards the cell phone causes while driving.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I think, along with have the phone company’s employee add to the final sell’s orintation, a Warrning should be added to each cell phone packaging, “May be unsaft to use while driving,” just like it’s done to cigarette packaging. Like Larry said, an epidemic has been created, because of the williness of technology to satisfy the curiosity of humans. Technology should also be willing to supply a Warning. (Of course, like smoking everyone will net heed a Warning).
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
No amount of litigation or legislation can replace the responsibility that each of us has to accept when we drive our cars. If you are operating a vehicle that should be your only concern. If you need to make a call pull over. Its not rocket science, stop the car and then call whom ever you need to. when your done continue on your way.
“I am a good enough driver to concentrate on two things at once…”
That is what christoper said to him self when he chose to pay attention to his cell phone and not where his car was going…
He was wrong.
Now someone’s mother is dead.
He made a choice. Just as we all do everytime we turn the car key.
Sure there are a thousand other distractions when you are driving you car.
We shouldnt have to outlaw cell phone usage behind the wheel, but how many people have to die before we do?
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
No comment could do this frivolous suit justice. What a joke
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
This is absolutely one of the most frivilous lawsuits I have heard of. I have no desire to diminish the loss of this person’s mother, but it was not the cell phone company that was driving the car. I personally do not talk on the phone while driving, not even to my wife. If I did, and then had an accident that claimed a life, how could I live with that?
Suing the cell phone company is like the lady at McDonalds who spilled her coffee, or suing tobacco companies because you get lung cancer. I guess someone will sue Hustler magazined because of carpal tunnel syndrome. It is absurd. People need to take responsbility for their own actions and not try to blame others and file lawsuits. Members of the jury today have a tendency to look at who has the deep pockets rather than what is right or wrong. The McDonalds case was exactly that.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Dan,
I disagree with you on your McDonald’s example.
That was a major issue with that incident and not just someone spilling hot coffee on themselves. McDonald’s had been warned several times about serving their coffee too hot. Their coffee was being served in excess of 200 degrees F. The woman severely scalded the inside of her mouth that required emergency medical attention.
McDonald’s needed that wake up call.
December 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Personal responsibility (period)
Another unfortunate incident we all as safety pros can use to help spread the word to our workforce and their families about distracted driving.
If our workers are on a work-related call our companies can be held liable, and then the personal liability could forever ruin a family.
Teaching moment for us. Lawsuit should be dropped.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Come on lets take responsibility for our own actions.Don’t drink and drive Don’t talk on cell and drive if the TV show offends you turn the channel. We survived before the cell make a statement and don’t buy one.Money is what it is all about so remove the incentive and stop the madness.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am
What part of “Hang Up and Drive” is so difficult to understand?
My employer requires those of us who routinely drive on company business to sign a statement of understanding that cell phones are not to be used while driving. We must review and sign the statement every 6 months. If a call is necessary, we are to find a safe place to stop the vehicle and make/return the call.
Too many people fail to understand that the most dangerous thing most of us do every day is drive to or from work.
January 6th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Does this mean that I can sue McDonalds if someone hits me while they are digging around for the french fry they dropped while eating and driving since McDonalds did not warn them of the hazards of eating while driving?
January 6th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
No! It means you can sue the potato farmer in Idaho for selling a dangerous accident causing potato to McDonalds.
January 21st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
And the farmer can sue the fertilyzer company for making that potato grow up to be such an evil accident causing potato!
June 5th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Definitely accept what we stated. Your explanation was certainly easy and simple to recognise. I explain to you, I usually get irked when folks discuss problems that they plainly do not know about. You managed to hit the nail at the head and explained out everything without complication. Maybe, people usually takes a signal. Will probably return to obtain additional. Thanks.
June 6th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Appreciate your taking this possibility to talk about this, Personally i think strongly about this and I take advantage of studying this subject. If at all, while you gain data, please update this website with new information. I’ve discovered it extremely useful.
June 7th, 2010 at 10:22 am
Just stop and think who are the new drivers on the road.? They are experts with phones and all the other tec toys and the phone company’s just keep adding more and more to them is this really a true effort to keep the usage while driving from happening? The new drivers know how the tec toys better than how to drive and this is only going to get worse as the next generation starts to drive. You can lay blame on the driver all you want and not be worng but the phone company’s have to take a share of blame also. In my industry people are being killed and mimed daily while doing thier work and the cell phone is the main reason.
July 27th, 2010 at 7:54 am
I believe just like GPS units phones should not work or should warn the user to stop this practice while driving. Not all cell phones use GPS at this time they do have tracking capability as they look for signals. We all know people will never do the right thing all the time so reminding them is an option that needs to be done for other people’s protection. Kids will not stop; being in touch all the time is cool and they all use the call identifier as a tool to escape retribution for unwanted behavior.
July 30th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Driving and talking have quickly become an entrenched habit that will not be easily changed. Let’s not waste time fooling ourselves that this behavior could be changed through information campaigns. Is anybody old enough to remember a time when you couldn’t even find the seat belts in the back seats? Through strict laws the kids of today automatically climb into their car seats. I can remember when the federal government twisted the arms of states to go to 55 miles per hour. Accidents went way down and we worked our way out of an oil embargo. My point is entrenched behavior requires strong controls to change that behavior. I always prefer engineering controls first so can we design phones to not work in the cars. Paul’s suggestion of using cell towers sounds promising. Administrative controls could include; the driver’s license (privilege) is revoked for 6 months and the vehicle sold. I know this is extreme and I am using it as an example of how the risk has to outweigh the benefit. Who would risk talking on a phone if they had to pay off a car loan for five years and not have a car? Scary? We all know this is a bad practice but what are we willing to do to change it? How bad do we want to change? I think people want to keep it available even if they think it’s bad to drive and talk. Just in case.