Snapchat Can Be Sued for Role in Fatal Car Crash, Court Rules
npr.orgOf course they should be allowed to sue. Whether the suit makes sense or will be dismissed outright is up for a judge to decide.
It's a stupid feature, but I can't see how Snapchat is to blame for the actions of a passenger. Is the feature designed to show off how fast you're traveling, sure. It wasn't the person in the driver seat trying to record though.
I have to agree with you. You cannot sue a state government just because you got in an accident in the middle of a snowstorm because you were driving too fast for the weather and lost control of the car, even though the speed limit signs might permit you to drive that speed. There has to be a reasonable assumption call here, and no reasonable person can say that going that kind of speed on a residential roadway is reasonable. In addition, there is a reasonable suspicion that this kid may have been driving the car illegally if he was 17 and just with his friends.
https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/teen-driver/yr-frst-lcns/... https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/dmv/teen-driver/yr-frst-lcns/...
If Jason Davis was driving under an instruction permit, he did not have anyone in the car to legally supervise him under Wisconsin law. If he was driving under a probationary license there was a possibility he was driving legally if he was past the 9 month requirement without it being extended, but if he was still in the initial 9 month period he had more passengers in the car than he was legally allowed to have. It is possible for him to have been outside the probationary period of the probationary drivers license, but that would require him to get his license some time between Jan and March of 2016 and then immediately get his probationary 6 months after that with all the requirements entailed, and I find that unlikely.
This seems to me to be a series of bad decisions made both by the teenager behind the wheel, and the parents for letting him do so.
Something about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
It seems similar to "Send Me to Heaven" [1] the app for gamifying the destruction of phones.
[1] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-bans-app-that-wants-you-to-t...
Oh thank you for sharing that, it reminded me of my first android app from when I was 15. It used the accelerometer to see populate a leaderboard of how hard you could chuck your phone.
Counterpoint: I can't see how a speedometer overlay is anything except an attractive nuisance.
Shouldn't the counterpoint be how the driver somehow is no longer responsible for the vehicle? Which, is why it would be absurd for Snapchat to be accountable? To me, this seems no different than the driver claiming they aren't fault because "someone dared me to".
Doesn’t that just describe the majority of Snapchat filters?
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. [Wikipedia]
In my view, the driver is still liable (and that mustn't ever change) but Snapchat should have to prove to a judge that they shouldn't also be found liable.
A filter that makes you look like a dog does not encourage dangerous behavior the way a speedometer overlay does.
Would you say the same thing for a GoPro?
No. Do you think that a GoPro somehow invites use in dangerous circumstances? (Yes, I do mean the GoPro itself, including its software, and I do mean to exclude GoPro's marketing collateral and all the UCC they didn't ask for from this analysis)
Agreed with you. I just find it an step towards defining what Section 230 cover legally.
The only way this makes sense is the concept of attractive nuisance. That's a very poor case imho, but let's assume we had to make it. The real attractive nuisance here isn't snap, it's that someone made a car that can do 153mph, and some kids parents bought it for him. Not Snapchat letting you film it with filters.
To be clear, the car involved was a 2003 Jetta, 14 years old.
It wasn't like the parents bought their kid an Audi R8 or similar.
Why do you need a car that can do 153mph?
There's a sweet spot when it comes to power and efficiency. A car that only has enough power to go 70 mph will likely be very inefficient at it, not to mention that it would take a very long time to get there. On the other side of the spectrum, a 600+ horsepower monster than can go 200+ mph is pretty inefficient at 70 mph, too.
But somewhere in the 150-200 horsepower range will end up with a car that is very efficient at 70 mph, and a top speed around 130-150 mph depending on gearing an aerodynamics.
Of course, rather than designing cars with lower power, they could simply add a governor, so the car computer does not allow travel above a certain speed, but that would be an incredibly unpopular option, even among people that don't go significantly over the limit.