What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

What the Fark???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: What the Fark???

SJHovey said:
I also posted in the other thread.

I don't think it's out of the question someone can, and should be held liable in a situation like this.

If you were in the car itself, and you intentionally did something to distract the driver, I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that you should be jointly liable. If the facts are there, (you knew, or should have known that the receiver was driving a car and reading the texts while driving), the question is probably going to go to the jury.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I don't have a source in front of me, but my recollection is that the court said a person could be held liable if they texted to a person they knew or should have known that the recipient was driving, and as is typical, the website (CNN?) sensationalized the headline. If I recall correctly, it was a denial of summary judgment of a finding of liability, so nobody has been found liable yet, and I don't think Fresh Fish's statement that "precedent has been set" is entirely accurate either; it sounds more like dicta than precedent to me. I doubt that the mere fact that you texted a person that happened to be driving would be sufficient to find liability. It'd take something more like texting to a person who you see driving, or responding to a text "I'm on the freeway driving 70". In fact that brings up an interesting question -- suppose you responded to that text with "You shouldn't be texting while you're driving"?
 
Re: What the Fark???

Priceless said:
As far as I am concerned, if you are a non-profit and filing for tax-exempt status (a special privilege from the government) then you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Period.
Click to expand...
I agree if you're talking about discriminating against gays, or a race or a sex, etc, but not age. How can anyone object to non-profit organizations specificly designed to educate, develop and help kids? Seriously, why would anyone say that the Little League needs to admit adults? Pure stupidity.
 
Re: What the Fark???

I sure hope they strictly take context into account. I've texted my roommate many times while I knew he was driving, because I wanted to let him know something, but not distract him with a phone call. My intention was he could get back to me when he had the chance, not that he respond right away while he's driving.

I can see it a bit more if you intentionally continue a conversation with someone you know is driving, but still, it's the driver's responsibility to ignore a distraction while they're driving. And a jingle/vibration is no where near the same level as waving your hands in a driver's face. Someone in a car can actually prevent the driver from paying full attention to the road, it's at the driver's discretion to read or respond to a text. If they do, they're actively choosing to be distracted.
 
Re: What the Fark???

On the driving/texting thing....The driver has to be responsible for their actions. There is no way the person texting them should be liable. It is the driver's and only the driver's decision to pick up the phone and read or send a text. This is like saying that the teenager wearing a sandwich board advertising for Little Ceasar's at an intersection is liable if some idiot gets distracted reading the board and rear-ends the car ahead of him.
 
Re: What the Fark???

CLS said:
I don't think Fresh Fish's statement that "precedent has been set" is entirely accurate either; it sounds more like dicta than precedent to me. I doubt that the mere fact that you texted a person that happened to be driving would be sufficient to find liability. It'd take something more like texting to a person who you see driving, or responding to a text "I'm on the freeway driving 70".
Click to expand...

The newspaper article which I read in paper form (which I could not find online and so I used a substitute) was a bit more clear: in New Jersey, since it was an appellate court ruling, it will serve as precedent in that state. And the conclusion was exactly as you stated: while the court ruled that if you texted a person when you knew that person was driving, you could be held liable; however, it then went on to rule that, given the facts of the particular case at hand, the person sending the text could not have known that the recipient was driving at the time, and so the liability claim against her was dismissed.

The appellate court had the option merely to dismiss the liability claim against the texter by saying there was no way she could have known (based on the evidence presented) that the recipient was driving. The fact that the court went out of its way first to establish a potential claim, before then dismissing the particular case, is the element of the story that really stood out.
 
Re: What the Fark???

bigblue_dl said:
On the driving/texting thing....The driver has to be responsible for their actions. There is no way the person texting them should be liable. It is the driver's and only the driver's decision to pick up the phone and read or send a text. This is like saying that the teenager wearing a sandwich board advertising for Little Ceasar's at an intersection is liable if some idiot gets distracted reading the board and rear-ends the car ahead of him.
Click to expand...
This. It's the driver's sole responsibility to maintain awareness. Nobody else's. I have sent texts when I knew someone was driving so they had the information when they got to their destination. I have received texts of the same nature. I don't check my phone unless my car is parked. If you don't have the discipline to do it, turn your phone off when driving, or put it in the trunk.
 
bigblue_dl said:
I agree if you're talking about discriminating against gays, or a race or a sex, etc, but not age. How can anyone object to non-profit organizations specificly designed to educate, develop and help kids? Seriously, why would anyone say that the Little League needs to admit adults? Pure stupidity.
Click to expand...
Do the kids coach themselves?
 
Re: What the Fark???

Either way, that guy is going to have the great-granddaddy of all angry mobs on his doorstep on day 30. He'll never set foot in that town again.
 
Re: What the Fark???

Priceless said:
Was it a legitimate rape?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, because according to the 54 year-old "teacher" she implicitly "asked for it" by acting "older than her age". Never mind that 14 year-olds aren't allowed to consent according to Montana law.

This is clearly not an instance of some new grad 23 year-old getting a case of the hot nuts for a high school senior five years his junior; it's far less ambiguous than that. Regardless of student-teacher relationship ethics, this creep should be in jail for many years to come.
 
Re: What the Fark???

bigblue_dl said:
You consider Little League coaches "in" the Little League? I sure don't. The kids are in the Little League, the adults coach Little League. Its different.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said.

How can anyone object to non-profit organizations specificly designed to educate, develop and help kids?
Click to expand...

If the whole organization is tax-exempt, then the whole organization should be discrimination free. That includes the coaches and the office staff etc.
 
Re: What the Fark???

Priceless said:
That's not what you said.



If the whole organization is tax-exempt, then the whole organization should be discrimination free. That includes the coaches and the office staff etc.
Click to expand...
I also said that I don't think there should be any discrimination....or did you forget that part already?

My viewpoint is that the age discrimination argument, for an organization that is meant for youths, is pretty **** silly, and no, I'm still not considering the adults running the organization as part of that. Yes they are part of the organization, but they aren't what the organization is about.
 
Re: What the Fark???

A certain amount of "discrimination" in the technical sense is essential to everyday activity, if we say to "discriminate" is to notice distinctions.

Given this sense of the word, there is only a problem with "unreasonable" discrimination: it seems perfectly "reasonable" to me to have organizations devoted to youth welfare, for example, and not require them to admit adults as participating members (obviously adults will be running the organization).

Saying that a person is against all discrimination is just silly: does anyone really want to argue that Catholics should not be allowed to restrict participation in their sacraments only to Catholics? or that only Jews can go through a bar mitzvah? etc.

Yet under the doctrine of separation of church and state, we allow Catholic Churches and Jewish synagogs to be tax-exempt organizations.
 
Re: What the Fark???

FreshFish said:
A certain amount of "discrimination" in the technical sense is essential to everyday activity, if we say to "discriminate" is to notice distinctions.

Given this sense of the word, there is only a problem with "unreasonable" discrimination: it seems perfectly "reasonable" to me to have organizations devoted to youth welfare, for example, and not require them to admit adults as participating members (obviously adults will be running the organization).

Saying that a person is against all discrimination is just silly: does anyone really want to argue that Catholics should not be allowed to restrict participation in their sacraments only to Catholics? or that only Jews can go through a bar mitzvah? etc.

Yet under the doctrine of separation of church and state, we allow Catholic Churches and Jewish synagogs to be tax-exempt organizations.
Click to expand...

We also allow Catholic and other religious organizations to discriminate in their employment, an option which should change if they are to remain tax-exempt. Frankly, I don't think many churches should be allowed to keep their exemption anyway.
 
Re: What the Fark???

Priceless said:
We also allow Catholic and other religious organizations to discriminate in their employment, an option which should change if they are to remain tax-exempt. Frankly, I don't think many churches should be allowed to keep their exemption anyway.
Click to expand...
Which churches should, then?
 
Priceless said:
We also allow Catholic and other religious organizations to discriminate in their employment, an option which should change if they are to remain tax-exempt. Frankly, I don't think many churches should be allowed to keep their exemption anyway.
Click to expand...

My school district also discriminates against felons, especially those with crimes against children. How dare they!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top