In December 2018, two different courts issued opinions in favor of Apple in personal injury/wrongful death suits. The first is Modisette v. Apple Inc. (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Modisette.pdf), from the Court of Appeal of the State of California; the second is Meador v. Apple Inc. (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-40968-CV0.pdf), from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The facts of the two cases are very similar. In the Modisette case the Modisette family had been traveling on the highway and were “stopped due to police activity.” Another driver crashed into the Modissettes’ car while using Facetime on his Apple iPhone 6 Plus, killing their 5-year-old daughter and causing severe injuries to the others. In the Meador case, the other driver received a text message on her iPhone 5 and “looked down to read the text.” When she turned her attention back to driving she collided with the Meadors’ vehicle killing, the parents and causing the child to become a paraplegic.
In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged that Apple was liable because the iPhone in question was responsible for causing the distracted driving. Both lawsuits claimed that Apple should have installed a “lockout” feature (which Apple had patented in 2008) to limit the phone’s capabilities while in a moving vehicle. Both courts were asked to evaluate whether the iPhone in use, and thus Apple as the manufacturer, could take be at least partially blamed for the accidents.
In Modisette the Court concluded that Apple owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs, because the harm to them was not “closely tied to the defendants’ actions. Apple’s design of the iPhone…simply made Wilhelm’s use of the phone while driving possible, as does the creator of any product (such as a map, a radio, a hot cup of coffee, or makeup) that could foreseeably distract a driver using the product while driving.” The Court continues “For the Modisettes to be injured, they had to stop on a highway due to police activity; Wilhelm had to choose to use his iPhone while driving in a manner that caused him to fail to see that the Modisettes had stopped; and Wilhelm had to hit the Modisettes’ car with his car, an object heavy enough to cause the Modisettes’ severe injuries. It was Wilhelm’s conduct of utilizing FaceTime while driving at highway speed that directly placed the Modisettes in danger. Nothing that Apple did induced Wilhelm’s reckless driving.” The Court also pointed out that the state legislature has taken up the issue of cell phone use while driving and chose not to issue an complete ban. Rather, the legislature limited the use of cell phones while driving to voice operated and hands free mode.
In Meador, the court based its decision in favor of Apple on the ground that there was no causation. The plaintiffs “alleged that the accident was caused by Apple’s failure to implement the [lockout] patent on the iPhone 5 and by Apple’s failure to warn iPhone 5 users about the risks of distracted driving. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that receipt of a text message triggers in the recipient ‘an unconscious and automatic, neurobiological compulsion to engage in texting behavior.’” The court, applying Texas law in this diversity case, rejected this theory of causation: “No Texas case has addressed whether a smartphone manufacturer should be liable for a user’s torts because the neurobiological response induced by the phone is a substantial factor in her tortious acts. To our knowledge, informed by submissions to us, no court in the country has yet held that, and numerous courts have declined to do so. As such, no authority indicates to us that Texas courts, contemplating reasonable persons and ordinary minds, would recognize a person’s induced responses to her phone as a substantial factor in her tortious acts and therefore hold the phone’s manufacturer responsible.”
It will be noted that, although Modisette uses a duty of care analysis and Meador uses a causation analysis, both are grounded in the practical recognition that holding Apple liable in this case would open up virtually unlimited liability against the manufacturer of any device or object that could distract a driver. Changing stations on a car radio while driving is distracting; eating while driving is distracting; shaving or putting on makeup while driving (both of which are known to happen) is distracting. If liability were extended beyond the careless driver who knowingly created the distraction, there would be no end to it.
