Is it going to change anything?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/technology/07distracted-side.html
People want justice. I totally get that. I know that for me, justice is one of the most desired outcomes for me if something is not going in a fair direction. At the end of the day, I want justification that what happened was diverted to the person or situation at fault. When someone is abused, it is only once justice is served that the person can begin to heal after the violence has occurred. Without justice, we feel we are in limbo and can’t move forward. I question whether Jennifer Smith is trying to seek justice by suing Sprint Nextel or if she is just trying to find anything to help her heal from the death of her mother. But my question is that even if Sprint was responsible for the man who was talking on his phone when he wrecked his car, is it really going to change anything?
I can’t even imagine the pain and agony one must feel when someone they love is taken from them. I am sure nothing in the world can take away that feeling of emptiness. I am sure Jennifer Smith is doing everything she can to mourn the loss of her mother, but suing Sprint, in my opinion is not going to make her feel better.
Aside from the tragedy this woman experienced, there is a topic that has become very familiar lately. People are suing big corporations, big companies, or anyone off the street just because they can. I believe Sprint is not at fault for the death of Jennifer Smith’s mother for the following reasons:
1. It is not illegal to drive and operate a cell phone (unless it is the state of New York and/or you are in a school zone); this incidence occurred in Oklahoma City
2. Even if you could argue that talking on a cell phone and driving is dangerous, the cell phone company itself is not in charge of enforcing that–the federal officials are.
3. A cell phone company cannot ensure that each person that buys a cell phone will not do something that is legal. That would be like McDonalds being responsible for people who choose to eat and drive and then get in a wreck.
4. The gentleman who was at fault in the car accident already has plead and will be indicted for the offense of vehicular homicide.
5. Although Sprint issued the phone to this man, Sprint did not manufacture it; Samsung did.
6. If all cell phone companies were responsible for traffic accidents then they would ALL be out of business.
I could go on and on, but my main point here is that even if this woman wins the lawsuit, it is not going to change a thing. Sprint will fork out the money, the woman will collect, cell phones will continue getting people in accidents, and the unfortunate thing is this woman’s mother will still be dead. The loss of money or gain of it will not change a thing.
Our system needs to change in order for something effective to occur. It does NOT make sense to me why it is legal to drive and talk on the cell phone. If a +b=c, then driving + cell phones =disaster. Its something we can predict yet New York is the only state that recognizes how important it is. If we want a big change, then we need to take BIG steps. Suing people is becoming old news and is more a hassle than anything. Money comes and money goes, but a big change can last forever!
Amanda said,
December 10, 2009 at 7:54 pm
It sounds like what she is trying to do is get the cell phone companies to take a more active and/or forceful role in making customers aware that using their cell phone while driving is dangerous and could be deadly. And in some respects I agree that the phone companies can do more in this regard. From the article, it seems like they do have warnings on packaging, user manuals, website, and advertising. But it doesn’t seem to be enough in this case because the defendent didn’t notice any of those.
So the question becomes – is it common sense that doing anything distracting (applying makeup, talking on the phone, texting, yelling at kids) IS dangerous and could be life threatening? I mean, in theory we should all learn that in drivers ed class and think about it everytime we drive. OR, do we need constant reminders?? And whose responsibility is it to provide those reminders? Our own? Our spouses? Cell phone companies? State laws?
Maybe it would help to have ALL of those sources reminding us. Maybe if Sprint did a better job of warning consumers, 1 less accident a year would happen. And that would be worth it to that one persons family. But then, it shouldn’t just be Sprint, right, it should be ALL phone companies.
My problem is, I don’t think a lawsuit is the best way to accomplish what she wants. There has to be a less greedy, money hungry way to go about it. Suing implies that the phone company is at fault, and I don’t believe they are. The defendant already plead guilty. There has to be a way to lobby, or protest, or petition for the phone companies to do a better job of warning customers. Unfortunately, money talks.
avarielle22 said,
December 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Yeah, I totally agree with you that the best thing would be for cell phone companies to be more active, but if they are not required to, then its not on their shoulders when an accident happens. I just think that a law suit would solve an unrelated problem…..the bigger, deeper issue, is that the LAW needs to change. Even when a law is established, people will go against it, but in that case silly law suits wouldn’t happen because the law would be implemented and deferred to who is responsible. Maybe the government is taking less and less responsibility for things and that is why so many people sue anyone they can think of….its the like the spaghetti against the wall thing. I don’t know, but in this case, the guy made a horrible choice and risked his and took someone’s life. He is the one ultimately responsible and sounds like he will be paying for that the rest of his life…..I am sure he is not mad at sprint right now. I am guessing he is more mad at himself than anyone else.