GPS - A marketing plan that destroys good driving habits.
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335
Another potential source is driver distraction is the global positioning system or GPS that several manufacturers place in cars as standard equipment. As a person with a brain trained in the law it's amazing how complicated all these devices that are supposed to make our lives simpler are complicating it more and more. Good marketing doesn't necessarily translate into good driving habits.
Anyone a fan of NBC's much-loved comedy The Office? If so, remember the episode where Steve Carrol's character drove his car into a lake and blamed it on his GPS unit. We all laughed at the stupidity of the situation; turns out, in reality, such situations are not that uncommon.
But why is this kind of car wreck becoming more common? Let's review where we've been. We've looked at the cell phone call, the cell phone text messaging session, then the iPod and now the GPS or global positioning system. All very useful inventions but all extremely stupid ways to increase your chances of having a car wreck. My mother taught me to drive. That was an experience that I could certainly write a series on but out of respect for her I won't. Her method had this fictitious brake pedal on the passenger side of her Buick that we all learned to drive. She would furiously pump her right leg tapping her foot on the floor and at the same time repeat in rapid succession, "You are going to stop aren't you?" You gotta love a mother as driving instructor. She also did this thing with her arm fully extended, elbow locked and hand planted on the dash. At the time I wasn't sure what that was about, but now after four kids and a very expensive legal education I'm firmly convinced she was responsible for inventing the first airbag.
So what are some of the ways people get in trouble with the GPS? Today let's look at the GPS and train tracks.
In January 2008, a man sued a GPS service provider after his rental car got stuck on a railway and was struck by a train. You might wonder what, exactly; the gentleman was doing on the railway to begin with? Well, he was simply following his GPS unit's instructions and got stuck. That's what they say but realistically does the GPS tell you to stop on train tracks? Dolly would say you're just acting stupid but the lawyer in me says there is more to it than that which this article tells us. Let's look at the law.
Who's to blame here: the service provider whose directions weren't completely accurate and led the man to drive onto the tracks, or the individual who acted without common sense in driving on the tracks and blamed it on the device?
This reminds me of the most maligned and misunderstood McDonald's coffee case. Common sense tell us all that when you order hot coffee you'll probably get hot coffee; however, that little ditty might sell on Madison Avenue but that's too simplistic and doesn't really get at the heart of the problem. Because in that case McDonald's failed to inform customers that their coffee was approximately 20 degrees hotter than average, was according to their own trial expert not consumable and as served would give you first degree burns.
Under the products liability law, manufacturers and retailers are responsible for putting products onto the market that they know or should know are defective or potentially dangerous to consumers.
So, under this law, should GPS service providers be held liable for satellite-submitted instructions that, though helpful, are not 100% accurate?
Here a number of factors must be considered. First, was the product defective in terms of design, manufacturing, or even marketing? Also, did the GPS come equipped with a disclaimer warning users of possible miscalculations?
Provided the unit came equipped with a valid disclaimer, the driver would generally be responsible for making reasonable judgments in his/her own best interest, regardless of what the GPS recommended. It's called the reasonable-man standard.
The court would then determine whether driver responsibility is considered "an enforceable contractual provision or an unenforceable 'adhesion contract'".
Jurors ask questions too. Not necessarily required by law but they want answers having to do with common sense. They might ask simple questions, like: In what way the user was misled? Was it a rental car or his own vehicle? What in heaven's name made him stop on railroad tracks? Could I too do that?