AFM231project
Distracted Driving
By Sophie Jiwan, Sohi Kwon, Bonnie Lee, Soobin Park, Lu Zhang
Situation
The photo shows a car with a display screen mounted on a dashboard, and the passenger controlling its GPS settings. The system is controlled using a “controller” (where the hand is in the photo). This can be used while driving to not only view the GPS’s directions, but to also program the GPS, change the map display, and change the radio settings, among other things.
While in this particular photo although the passenger is controlling the GPS system, it shows that if the car were to be in motion, it can be controlled by the driver while driving. This would mean the driver’s hand would be off the wheel as well as their attention off the road; onto the screen.
Legal risk
The legal risk involved in this situation is that the driver could be involved in an accident while using the GPS system; resulting in potential serious damage to other victims in the accident. In this case, the driver has committed a legal crime for distracted driving. The Ministry of Transportation (of Ontario) states that a driver is not to use a GPS device while driving unless it is controlled by voice commands. In addition, the victim could sue both the driver and Lexus (the company of the car in this specific case) in tort for their injuries and damages. This is due to the fact that Lexus has provided a system where the driver is to control the system by hand and the driver would be distracted while driving; both parties may be liable in tort.
Tort(s)
In this case, the most prevalent negligence tort would be that of the distracted driver who utilized the GPS device when driving. However, Lexus should be concerned with the tort of negligence and product liability for providing an opportunity for the driver to be distracted with the GPS device.
The defendant, Lexus, owes a duty of care for both the driver, who is the user of their product, and the victim of the other car who suffered injury. Also, the victim could be considered a neighbour as they suffered injury from the designing of the car of the company.
There was reasonable foreseeability that allowing drivers to use the GPS system while driving may cause distraction which could lead to an accident. As well, there is reasonable proximity between the parties as it involves their user (driver) and the victim. There should not be a policy reducing the considerations as Lexus should know the consequences of providing a product to a large customer base could result in a greater number of liability owing standard of care. Therefore, when it was the actual product that caused the other party the accident, imposing a liability is reasonable.
The defendant breached the standard of care as their multi-functionality of product or design could lead to serious car accidents. Therefore, they have a higher risk and higher standard of care. However, in this case, with knowing that distracted driving could lead to accidents, Lexus still implemented the GPS system that could be programmed during driving. Although Lexus provides a warning (about distracted driving) when the car is turned on, it may not be enough to exempt them from liability because it does not require the driver to accept full responsibility for using it when driving.
If the plaintiff suffers injuries from an accident that was caused by a distracted driver utilizing the GPS function of the car, there could be causation. However, we note that causation could be difficult to prove, as it can be argued that it was solely the distracted driver's actions that caused the accident.
The plaintiff’s injuries are not too remote as a car company should be aware of high possibilities of consequences of their negligence should lead to car accidents.
Defences
Lexus could argue that as a reasonable person (driver that committed the tort, who is legally allowed to drive a car and has a valid driver's license), he/she should know that focusing on the road is of utmost importance. The driver should know full well that using/playing with the controls on the GPS while driving will take their eyes off the road. Therefore, his assumption of the risk involved in the car accident was voluntary. Lexus can argue that it was not the GPS that caused the driver’s accident, but that it was completely the driver's fault because he was negligent on the road.
Other relevant points
The driver of the car itself could try to sue Lexus for allowing them to be distracted but this would be unlikely to succeed because of contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. It was the driver’s driving and their choice to use the system while driving that at least in part caused the accident. As well, since Lexus provides a warning before using the system, Lexus could argue that the driver voluntarily assumed the risk that was involved.
Distracted Driving
By Sophie Jiwan, Sohi Kwon, Bonnie Lee, Soobin Park, Lu Zhang
Situation
The photo shows a car with a display screen mounted on a dashboard, and the passenger controlling its GPS settings. The system is controlled using a “controller” (where the hand is in the photo). This can be used while driving to not only view the GPS’s directions, but to also program the GPS, change the map display, and change the radio settings, among other things.
While in this particular photo although the passenger is controlling the GPS system, it shows that if the car were to be in motion, it can be controlled by the driver while driving. This would mean the driver’s hand would be off the wheel as well as their attention off the road; onto the screen.
Legal risk
The legal risk involved in this situation is that the driver could be involved in an accident while using the GPS system; resulting in potential serious damage to other victims in the accident. In this case, the driver has committed a legal crime for distracted driving. The Ministry of Transportation (of Ontario) states that a driver is not to use a GPS device while driving unless it is controlled by voice commands. In addition, the victim could sue both the driver and Lexus (the company of the car in this specific case) in tort for their injuries and damages. This is due to the fact that Lexus has provided a system where the driver is to control the system by hand and the driver would be distracted while driving; both parties may be liable in tort.
Tort(s)
In this case, the most prevalent negligence tort would be that of the distracted driver who utilized the GPS device when driving. However, Lexus should be concerned with the tort of negligence and product liability for providing an opportunity for the driver to be distracted with the GPS device.
The defendant, Lexus, owes a duty of care for both the driver, who is the user of their product, and the victim of the other car who suffered injury. Also, the victim could be considered a neighbour as they suffered injury from the designing of the car of the company.
There was reasonable foreseeability that allowing drivers to use the GPS system while driving may cause distraction which could lead to an accident. As well, there is reasonable proximity between the parties as it involves their user (driver) and the victim. There should not be a policy reducing the considerations as Lexus should know the consequences of providing a product to a large customer base could result in a greater number of liability owing standard of care. Therefore, when it was the actual product that caused the other party the accident, imposing a liability is reasonable.
The defendant breached the standard of care as their multi-functionality of product or design could lead to serious car accidents. Therefore, they have a higher risk and higher standard of care. However, in this case, with knowing that distracted driving could lead to accidents, Lexus still implemented the GPS system that could be programmed during driving. Although Lexus provides a warning (about distracted driving) when the car is turned on, it may not be enough to exempt them from liability because it does not require the driver to accept full responsibility for using it when driving.
If the plaintiff suffers injuries from an accident that was caused by a distracted driver utilizing the GPS function of the car, there could be causation. However, we note that causation could be difficult to prove, as it can be argued that it was solely the distracted driver's actions that caused the accident.
The plaintiff’s injuries are not too remote as a car company should be aware of high possibilities of consequences of their negligence should lead to car accidents.
Defences
Lexus could argue that as a reasonable person (driver that committed the tort, who is legally allowed to drive a car and has a valid driver's license), he/she should know that focusing on the road is of utmost importance. The driver should know full well that using/playing with the controls on the GPS while driving will take their eyes off the road. Therefore, his assumption of the risk involved in the car accident was voluntary. Lexus can argue that it was not the GPS that caused the driver’s accident, but that it was completely the driver's fault because he was negligent on the road.
Other relevant points
The driver of the car itself could try to sue Lexus for allowing them to be distracted but this would be unlikely to succeed because of contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. It was the driver’s driving and their choice to use the system while driving that at least in part caused the accident. As well, since Lexus provides a warning before using the system, Lexus could argue that the driver voluntarily assumed the risk that was involved.