California Lawsuit Claims Apple Failed To Prevent Fatal Facetime Crash

It's never the driver's fault for their actions. What if the driver decided that he didn't want to do the update?
Next step will be that their lawyer will try to sue the car brand they own because it didn't have automatic braking installed.
When are people going to man-up and accept responsibility for their actions.
I hope this gets thrown out of court.
There's going to be a time when lawyers find things to sue for and get people to do the act so they can file the suit.

I totally get what you are saying and it is frustrating when people abuse this age of innovation and tech

HOWEVER

Humans by nature are very curious, prone to take risk, and be naive at times especially the younger or less mature we are, behaviors usually corrected with age, time, and the not so common anymore "common sense"

This there is responsibility on behalf of these multi billion dollar company's to take precautions when introducing new tech and innovation as people are known to push the envelope sometimes at the ultimate cost, their life.

That is why I applaud a company like Mercedes Benz whom literally forces the driver to stay attentive by grabbing the steering wheel at certain intervals to assure the driver is alert and isn't abusing the tech.

While Apple is not to blame for this crash, as the most valuable and one of the most profitable companies in the world it too could have built tech in the phone to prevent FaceTime from being used while driving,
, we've heard of the snap chat death as well from a someone speeding posting it and crashing shortly after

Three cheers for making everyone blameless victims of big companies.

ATTENTION ATTENTION...BEFORE ANYONE ELSE CARELESSLY COMMENTS ON ARTICLE PLZ SEE BELOW

1)DRIVER ADMITS FAULT FOR ACCIDENT AND TOLD OFFICERS HE WAS FACETIMING AT THE TIME

2)FAMILY OF 5 YEAR OLD CHILD KILLED BY ABOVE DRIVER IS SUING APPLE FOR NEGLIGENCE

3) APPLE PREVIOUSLY FILED PATENT PREVENTING FACETIME WHILE DRIVING WHICH MEANS BOTH THEIR LAWYERS AND ENGINEERS SAW A NEED FOR IT, BUT IM GUESSING EXECS CHOSE TO SAVE MILLIONS
INSTEAD

That is all

This is 100% about wanting to pass the blame and make money off the death of a child.

The driver was at fault.

I'm sick of the blameless society garbage that we live in.

We need--by law--to lock out hand held cell phone usage by the drivers of all vehicles.

It needs to happen NOW.

Seriously guys NO ONE IS SAYING THE DRIVER ISNT AT FAULT, THATS OBVIOUS.


WHAT IS BEING SAID IS THE SAME WAY YOU HAVE AUTOMAKERS, CREATING SAFETY INNOVATION LIKE AUTOMATIC BRAKING, PEDESTRIAN DETECTION, BLIND SPOT ASSIST, CLEANER EMISSIONS STANDARDS, HIGHER FUEL EFFICIECNCY

, you can also have MULTI BILLION DOLLAR TECHGIANTS INVEST SOME OF THOSE BILLIONS IN SAFETY TECH FOR THEIR DEVICES

READ THE ARTICLE, APPLE ALREADY FILED A PATENT FOR TECH TO PREVENT USE OF FACETIME WHILE DRIVING BUT FAILED TO INSTALL IT, probably saved them even more money which is why they didn't

There will always be those who "jailbreak" or "root" their phones so they can by-pass the protocols that were in place by the big companies.
I'm not defending the Apples of the world, I'm pissed at the "blame-them" society.
People will always find ways to be stupid.

Correct, just as there will always be people whom choose not to wear their seatbelt, or buckle up even as newer vehicles warn them to with alerts, I'm glad we still require seat belts to be installed for the majority of us and hope tech giants will take precautions, it's not the jerks who disobey these laws I'm worried about, it's the innocent lives of others they take or affect by their negligence like the innocent victim killed above by the negligent facetiming driver above

The United States of America:
More lawyers per capita than the next five nations combined;
Less self-accountability than you can imagine :-(

Core Principles for Conduct:
- It's not my fault
- Don't get mad, get even... don't get even, get AHEAD (that's what the lawyers, or "The Court Lottery", are for.)

READ THE ARTICLE, THE 5 YEAR OLD GIRL WHOM WAS KILLED FAMILY IS SUING APPLE, sheeesh is reading no longer a thing?

And yea I get your comment about lawyers it's true but irrelevant here.

Car4life1: Driver on phone app kills girl. Deceased girl's family sues Apple. Yeah, that's where the money is. A big, giant, profitable giga-corporation with billions in cash reserves. That's where The Courtroom Lottery might pay off BIG! Suing the person who is truly responsible -- the driver -- might not pay off as big.

Greed and stupidity.

Strangely, we have laws that PREVENT victims of gun crime from suing firearm manufacturers. That's a fact! Lawyers , legislators, and lobbyists… oh my!

TheSteve I'm going to try to get this to you but I don't have much faith.

You are stating the obvious ofcourse the big money is going after the lotto, of I just lost my child and find out the idiot who did it was using a company's device, that the company themselves had record on filing at patent for the technology that could have prevented my child's but decided not too because it may affect their record profit....

YOU BETTER BET I WOULD SUE THE CRAP OUT OF THEM RECOUPING EVERY DIME THEY SAVED DECIDING NOT TO BUILD THE SAFETY PRECAUTION IN THE DEVICE IN THE FIRST PLACE

AND WHILE IM SURE IT DOESNT BRIBG BACK THEIR CHILD, IT SURE AS HELL WILL MAKE THEM THINK TWICE ABOUT DECIDING TO POCKET THE PROFIT INSTEAD OF INVESTING IN SAFETY THE NEXT TIME

Dear Car4life,
It is ILLEGAL for a driver to be using a Phone while driving in California - and as far as I know - most states. That being the case - apple did not need to install a way to prevent it being used by a driver there - the driver cannot legally even have his phone on. The driver is responsible for the accident and the death - and APPLE likely will be cleared.

Dear TomM, wrong you can still use your phone while driving so long as its hands free, second in many states in the Midwest and south it's still legal to use your phone.

Point being TomM, it's also illegal to drink and drive, or drive without a seatbelt, but people still do it, and while I appreciate your defense of multi billion dollar Apple all we are asking them to do is take the extra steps and set standards regarding safety in your own industry the same way leading auto giants like Mercedes, which whom Apple works with regularly, does in theirs.

Car4life1 - sorry - the article mentioned that it was an Apple I phone 6 - which is a hand held device - and the article says that in at least two places - did you read it? And I was also not aware that California was a state in the south or Midwest as well.

Just as the case with the guy who was charged DUI for caffeine - this case will go nowhere as well. This is equivalent to a robber complaining that if the Bank used better locks - he would not have been able to steal the money.

Note that the driver admitted to be using FaceTime at the time of the crash.

Meaning... he had to be holding the phone so that the camera would capture his face, and to enbale him to view the other party during the call.

He was NOT using the phone using handsfree - and was thus violating California law at the time of the accident.

Again...case in point being Apple has a patent on file for the technology to prevent use of cellular use while driving but did not follow through most likely due to cost, which gives this family who lost a child a case as, any defense lawyer would say had they installed the tech, a life could've been saved,

Second NEVER ASSUME he was holding the phone to face time, if connected to Bluetooth you can just as easily handsree accept call while the phone is laying in your cup holder pointing up and still be distracted, that was your first mistake.

I cannot even believe anyone would defend this type of lawsauit. Apple did not have a legal obligation to install this type accident-prevention technology into their phones. Absolutely, absurdly ridiculous.

Should every carmaker be obligated to install a car breathalyzer device to ensure no drivers drive drunk and kill? The technology is there and it's likely affordable for every carmaker to install.

Or why isn't every carmaker obligated to limit speed? Speed limits exist for safety reasons, as apparently it's been proven that speed kills. So, why isn't every carmaker obligated to limit speeds to 75mph? Clearly, the tech exists to limit car's top speeds.

Absurd lawsuit and more absurd that anyone would defend it.

Well call me Absurd...lol you are showing your age with that word... didn't even sound right coming from me, anyway again you are missing the point here, the difference between your breathalyzer comment is that technology was not developed by a specific car company, nor was it patented by a car company, it was a third party development.

Apple got their hands dirty when in fact any judge, attorney, or person in society can look up public records of Apple filing a patently and documents for a specific technology to prevent use of FaceTime while driving, meaning they have this safety patent and failed to install it and could have delayed other companies from installing it on their devices because Apple patented the tech making it more expensive or impossible for other tech companies to do so with the same tech.

To your point of speed limit, we already have laws stating the posted doors limit, if someone is found speeding they are dealt with appropriately by law enforcement.

What I also feel is ABSURD is anyone defending a multi billion dollar company that sat on safety tech it could have easily installed in its phone for standards of its own.

Again take Mercedes, half of the safety tech they have in their cars is not required by law, but occupants, industry, and apparently buyers have that much more respect for a company whom goes above and beyond for their industry.

Apple is a leader, and makes crazy profit off their iPhone, spend a few more bucks and do what's right Mr. Cook.

That's All

@Car4life1 your assertions are 100% about shifting blame.

Apple would have been at GREATER liability if they had implemented a technology that was not based in law.

Any company that implements a technology not codified in law places themselves at risk. If Mercedes' technology fails then they are at risk because no law mandated the technology.

The culprit here is the lack of laws mandating that the driver's cell phone automatically "bricks" while driving.

People need to shoulder the blame for their own actions and stop doing the amoral blame shifting and big payout searching idiocy that snowflakes love so much doing.

Yes, you are ABSURD, as you've proven time and again. And just the fact that you would add the type of context regarding that word the way you did says everything anyone on this site needs to know about you: not worth the time.

THAT is all.

@cidflekken pathetic and incoherent as usual. I tell you to go ram yourself, but I'm pretty condifent you aren't that talented. It must be sad for you wishing you could be me.

The driver of the vehicle that caused the accident KNEW that there was no technology installed on the phone or in his car - by Apple or anyone else - that prevented him from taking a FaceTime call while driving.

HE WILLFULLY AND DELIBERATELY assumed this risk when he participated in a call while at the wheel. And a horrible tragedy was the unfortunate result.

The driver willfully assumed risk by being on the call while driving.

End of story.

And case closed.

While Apple created technology that blocks Facetime in the car - it is under no requirement or obligation to implement it.

At this time, there is no safety requirement by the federal government (or by states) that says Apple must do so.

A parallel: Note that "Run Flat" tires have been proven to save lives by being far less prone to explosion at high speed.

Yet, there is currently no law that says they must be included on every vehicle sold in the U.S.

Should the family of someone killed while driving a car - that does not have Run-Flats - be allowed to hold the tire manufacturer responsible for not including it on the car the deceased was driving at the time of a tire blowout on the highway?

Of course not. And by the same token, Apple cannot be held culpable for not integrating technology ... when it has not been required by law.