Lawsuit Accuses Snapchat Of Negligence

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Even though something like this was bound to happen, the person responsible for this was the girl behind the wheel at the time of the accident. What kind of moron drives like that with a pregnant passenger in the car?

Snapchat has a filter that allows users to record their speed of travel, and she wanted to see how fast she could go. So McGee accelerated, then accelerated some more, reaching 113 miles per hour on a suburban road outside Atlanta where the speed limit is 55. She didn’t see Maynard Wentworth, an Uber driver just starting his shift that night, until it was too late. She hit him at 107 miles per hour.
 
Definition of frivolous lawsuit. The toolmaker has no saying if the person using the tool does stupid things with it. Chronometers measure time, if someone chooses to time itself between two points in a city and races through them, is it the Chronometer's maker fault that he was being stupid like that?, obviously the answer is No.

EDIT:
I get it that most of the time the insurance forces these lawsuits but still, wow :/... they missed that they should sue the carmaker since it has an inbuilt speedometer and it could go over the legal limit. (and yeah the speedometer of any car shows just how stupid the 18yo girl was)
 
Last edited:
Always after the deep pockets they go. I guess it's possible they'll present evidence that causes me to change my mind, but at this point, I'd place all the blame on the girl...but maybe her family has deep pockets...probably not enough for the guy who's permanently disabled :(
 
Stupid lawsuit. The idiot girl should get sued - not only was she recklessly driving, she was also using a mobile device while driving from the sound of it. She should get jail time. No way SnapChat should be on the hook for a psycho's use of their product.
 
Revdarian said:
EDIT: I get it that most of the time the insurance forces these lawsuits but still, wow :/... they missed that they should sue the carmaker since it has an inbuilt speedometer and it could go over the legal limit. (and yeah the speedometer of any car shows just how stupid the 18yo girl was)
Click to expand...

Clearly, speedometers should end at 85 mph, as was required between 1979 and 1981; that'll fix this!
 
I guess we should also sue breathalyzer manufacturers every time someone dies from alcohol poisoning after seeing "how high they could go".

Ridiculous lawsuit.

EDIT: To be fair, though, that is also a really stupid feature.
 
toast0 said:
Clearly, speedometers should end at 85 mph, as was required between 1979 and 1981; that'll fix this!
Click to expand...
I know you're being facetious, but that made a lot more sense when the top speed limit was 55. Now the stop speed limit is 85 and 75-80 is common, so you really need to go to at least 110 or 115. And honestly, there are probably upper plains states that could have 100 mph or higher limits, because I suspect there's virtually no traffic. i10 west of San Antonio is probably pretty desolate, though it's 80mph, not the state max of 85.
 
I sure hope this is just a formality and they don't honestly think that they have a legitimate shot at winning. But judging by how unbelievably stupid the original act was, I think there's no hope.
 
She was the one driving, She was the one who decided to speed, and She is the only one at fault.
She should be sued, and if her insurance is not enough to cover the damaged, She should spend the rest of her life paying off the debt.
 
MavericK said:
I guess we should also sue breathalyzer manufacturers every time someone dies from alcohol poisoning after seeing "how high they could go".

Ridiculous lawsuit.

EDIT: To be fair, though, that is also a really stupid feature.
Click to expand...
I agree, why does snap chat needs to display your speed? That said there are tons of other programs on smart phones, mostly mapping apps, that already do this. Feel terrible for the victim, the people leveling this lawsuit, he suffered permanent brain damage and was in a hospital for months. I can't imagine what those medical bills add up to. Feel terrible for the Girl's parents because they raised a moron, most teens are, that could potentially bankrupt them for her imaginary internet points. Everyone loses on this one.
 
There is a snapchat from the 18yo where she says "Lucky to be alive" with a picture of her in a hospital bed.

You would think after snapchatting herself into a horrible car wreak she would put the fucking snapchat away for awhile.

Edit: More from the article: "Christal McGee was behind the wheel of her father’s white Mercedes, 18-years-old"

^ This explains the whole thing.
 
Stupid victim, what a bad driver for not watching out for reckless drivers, never should have gotten in her way, no empathy for people that are fully capable of taking care of themselves but choose not to by constantly making bad decisions in life.

(Am I doing this victim blaming thing right?)
 
nutzo said:
She was the one driving, She was the one who decided to speed, and She is the only one at fault.
She should be sued, and if her insurance is not enough to cover the damaged, She should spend the rest of her life paying off the debt.
Click to expand...
She is the one being sued (along with Snapchat)
 
She is breaking the law speeding AND diving while texting.... im no expert, but i dont think snapchat is legally obligated to issue a warning saying "dont break the law while using our app" "twice"...

Maybe something along the lines of "WARNING: we are not responsible for utter stupidity"

Let the warning label suggestions begin in 5...4...3...2...1....
 
None of the articles I could find made any mention of whether or not she suffered criminal legal consequences but it seems hard to believe that she didn't with all of the evidence available. This is just the civil lawsuit proceedings.
 
nilepez said:
And honestly, there are probably upper plains states that could have 100 mph or higher limits, because I suspect there's virtually no traffic. i10 west of San Antonio is probably pretty desolate, though it's 80mph, not the state max of 85.
Click to expand...

And miss out on that sweet sweet ticket revenue? You sir, are crazy!
 
evilsofa said:
Stupid victim, what a bad driver for not watching out for reckless drivers, never should have gotten in her way, no empathy for people that are fully capable of taking care of themselves but choose not to by constantly making bad decisions in life.

(Am I doing this victim blaming thing right?)
Click to expand...

Almost. You forgot to blame Uber for letting the guy drive for them. If it weren't for Uber he might still be safe at home.
 
These frivolous lawsuits should have consequences for everyone involved. Including, if the court deams it frivolous, that the plaintiff has to pay court fees and/or the lawyers involved should be subject to a BAR review.
 
nilepez said:
I know you're being facetious, but that made a lot more sense when the top speed limit was 55. Now the stop speed limit is 85 and 75-80 is common, so you really need to go to at least 110 or 115. And honestly, there are probably upper plains states that could have 100 mph or higher limits, because I suspect there's virtually no traffic. i10 west of San Antonio is probably pretty desolate, though it's 80mph, not the state max of 85.
Click to expand...
I10 West from San Antonio to where it merges with I20 is a pretty sparse stretch and just because the I10 West picks up the I20 West traffic it really doesn't change much until about 20 miles short of El Paso. I10 West from El Paso to Las Cruces is fairly dense, then after Las Cruces it's mixed, sometimes busy, sometimes light all the way to Tucson. From Tucson on to California the interstates stay fairly busy.
 
Spidey329 said:
And miss out on that sweet sweet ticket revenue? You sir, are crazy!
Click to expand...
At one point, I think either the Dakotas or WY had no speed limit. Besides, no matter what the speed limit is, there will always be someone willing to go faster, though I have to say with a speed limit of 75, I'm pretty much OK with sticking to 84 (which generally is slow enough to avoid a ticket), but if I get a new car I might change my mind. Hell, if they'd make Teslas with a 500 mile range (400 at highways speeds), I'd probably pick up a ticket or 2 just to test out ludicrous mode :D
 
Spidey329 said:
These frivolous lawsuits should have consequences for everyone involved. Including, if the court deems it frivolous, that the plaintiff has to pay court fees and/or the lawyers involved should be subject to a BAR review.
Click to expand...
It's not frivolous. He's suing the girl (and probably her parents) too.
 
lcpiper said:
I10 West from San Antonio to where it merges with I20 is a pretty sparse stretch and just because the I10 West picks up the I20 West traffic it really doesn't change much until about 20 miles short of El Paso. I10 West from El Paso to Las Cruces is fairly dense, then after Las Cruces it's mixed, sometimes busy, sometimes light all the way to Tucson. From Tucson on to California the interstates stay fairly busy.
Click to expand...
Correct. I meant San Antonio to El Paso, but I neglected to include that info ;)
 
MavericK said:
Suing Snapchat is the frivolous part.
Click to expand...
Every suit goes after the deep pockets. And again, we don't have all the facts. Maybe it's frivolous (as it certainly seems), but maybe there's something that makes it legit. The reality is that the guy is a very sympathetic plaintive and if they can't get the suit toss, they'll settle. A family friend had an accident and a guy was killed. By all accounts, the man was at fault, but due to his having a family and a widow who was disabled, the insurance company just settled, because they didn't think they'd win, even though the guy was driving like a maniac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top