This has to be the height of absudity even for NJ. She has no control over his actions. There is no obligation on her part as to when this individual decided to read his text. I’ll go further to state that even if she knew he was in the car when she texted him, it was his choice to read the message.
I don’t believe that cite is exactly on point. That involved a premises/property owner/renter’s responsibility to forsee potential hazardous conditions of the premises or property it controls. This is an entirely different fact pattern, the most important being that the woman did not control the other’s cell phone or when it should be accessed.
Palsgraf implies that negligent conduct resulting in injury will result in a liability only if the actor could have reasonably foreseen that the conduct would injure the victim.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
No brainer! See Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
EXCELLENT cite!! Foreseeability of harm.
Now – would the auto carrier or the HO carrier provide a defense?
Does anyone know which lawsuit this is or where I can find out about it.
It’s in the Daily Record, and a similar, short article was in the Star Ledger.
The sender has no culpability. She didn’t force the driver to read it. Can’t believe this is even a point at issue.
Another chase for the deep pockets. Unfortunate that someone has to even pay to have this defended.
This has to be the height of absudity even for NJ. She has no control over his actions. There is no obligation on her part as to when this individual decided to read his text. I’ll go further to state that even if she knew he was in the car when she texted him, it was his choice to read the message.
I don’t believe that cite is exactly on point. That involved a premises/property owner/renter’s responsibility to forsee potential hazardous conditions of the premises or property it controls. This is an entirely different fact pattern, the most important being that the woman did not control the other’s cell phone or when it should be accessed.
Palsgraf implies that negligent conduct resulting in injury will result in a liability only if the actor could have reasonably foreseen that the conduct would injure the victim.
Nothing to do with premises liability.