Jan 27, 2017 by: Carter Reschke

Texting-while-drivingA new class action suit, filed by Julio Ceja of Costa Mesa, California, is attempting to force Apple to implement technology into their phones that prevents texting while driving. The suit claims that this technology has been around for years, and Apple's failure to implement is resulting in lives lost. Ok, now we see these kind of frivolous suits against Apple and major corporations all the time, but this one is annoying enough that we thought we should address it. 

The (flawed) logic behind this suit, and many other suits that face Apple, is that the company is at fault for the mistakes of the consumer. That's false, and that is precisely why we have an issue with all of these suits against Apple (a similar suit was also filed recently). If you hit someone while texting and driving, how, in any way, is that Apple's fault? Let Apple make their iPhones how they want. Purchasing an iPhone doesn't force you to text and drive, it's a decision you make. Just like purchasing a gun doesn't force you to go murder someone.

We don't really get it. If any of you can shed some light on how crazy suits like these make any sense, feel free to let us know in

2 Comments

  1. Ed Graf ~ Jan. 27, 2017 @ 9:03 am

    If the judicial system rules against Apple, perhaps they should consider ruling against weapons manufacturers for the same reasoning. After all, the technology to allow fingerprint technology to allow someone to fire a gun has been around for quite a while, also. #
  2. Charles Sagan ~ Jan. 27, 2017 @ 3:03 pm

    Easy-- there's a basic legal concept of contributory negligence. Apple could, indeed, be partly responsible -- much the way 1. cigarette companies were for knowingly making a carcinogenic product-- they contributed to the smokers' deaths even though the ultimate responsibility was the individual's. 2. Or, the way a country club could be if they didn't lock the fence around the pool and someone fell in; 3. Or, the way a bartender can be, if he or she knowingly continued to serve someone who was obviously inebriated and who later ended up causing a drunk driving accident. If Apple had the technology, but decided to squash it because of what it thought would be inconvenience to users and even calculated potential lawsuit costs of not doing it, they could be liable. A key issue is whether they had a functioning technology. So, yes, the dumb driver texting should be held primarily responsible, but Apple and even the passengers if they did nothing could have contributed. Ed's point is a good one. Gun manufacturers should be held partly liable if they had the technology to make their products uber-safe, but neglected to do so. #

Leave your reply (* = required field)

* :
* :
:
*
* Comment: