Slaw: Could cellphone use constitute electronic presence at crime?
Send to KindleThe National Post recently presented the interesting case in which a New Jersey judge must decide whether someone can be “electronically present” in a car, even if they physically aren’t there, and, if so, whether the person can be held liable for events that take place, or that are caused by their electronic presence.
Put another way, if a person sends a text message to a person who is driving, and the driver gets into a vehicle collision, can others involved in the incident sue the sender of the message for distracting the driver?
For more, read my latest post on Slaw.
Most-viewed articles this month on HRinfodesk Injured worker was not able to receive loss of earning benefits after his termination
2 thoughts on “Slaw: Could cellphone use constitute electronic presence at crime?”
Leave a Reply
Get Free Updates
Recent Comments
-
Court of Appeal hints that right to strike may be protected by the Constitution
Hi John, Thanks for your comment. Check out paragraph 67 of the decision: "Accordingly, none of what I have written above is to suggest or... – May 22, 4:38 PM
-
Court of Appeal hints that right to strike may be protected by the Constitution
This is really spin doctoring the decision. My firm appeared at the Court of Appeal for an intervenor the University of Saskatchewan. Whatever the Supreme... – May 22, 1:00 AM
- Generated by BWP Recent Comments.
This is an update to my recent post: Could Cellphone Use Constitute Electronic Presence at Crime?
http://www.slaw.ca/2012/05/26/sender-of-the-text-message-not-liable-for-car-crash-judge-says/
There are a couple of things wrong with this…First, how can the sender know that the recipient is driving? Second, it is the recipient’s choice to answer the text or call when it is unsafe to do so. The responsibility should rest solely with the recipient.