Recently,
an attorney in New Jersey made a novel argument in a tort lawsuit
involving a woman who texted another woman who was driving a car.
According
to the Plaintiff’s attorney, the case involved a New Jersey woman that
sent a text to a woman who was also driving; just seconds after
responding to the text, the driver was involved in a tragic accident
with a motorcycle. The driver and passenger of the motorcycle each had
to have a part of their legs amputated.
Plaintiff
the woman who texted the driver, arguing that the texter was
“electronically present” in the incident. (It is not clear if the driver
was also sued, but likely was).
The
case against the individual allegedly texting with the driver was
dismissed on causation grounds. The judge noted in his order dismissing
the case, “were I to extend this duty [to the woman sending the text],
in my judgment any form of distraction could potentially serve as basis
of a liability case.” In his order, the judge also asked how the
distraction from the texting woman was any different from a billboard.
This case shows the importance of proving causation and how plaintiff
must meet that burden in presenting his/her case.
In
a lawsuit claiming negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant caused injury to him/her. There are two general types of
causation: “but for” causation and “proximate” causation. But for
causation is usually easily proved by medical evidence. But for
causation asks the question: would the injuries Plaintiff suffered have
occurred but for the defendant’s negligence? Proximate causation is
more difficult to define but can be boiled down to this question: even
if the injuries would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s
negligence, is the defendant’s negligence connected closely enough to
the plaintiff’s injuries that it is fair to hold the defendant
responsible?
In
this case, the judge seems to have taken issue with the attorney’s
argument concerning proximate causation. Notably, the system worked in
this case. The judge dismissed a case in which there is a strong
argument that the attorney was overreaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment