Is Apple Liable for Car Crashes Caused by Facetime?

When a driver uses an iPhone to "Facetime" someone and causes a crash, is Apple liable?It's an issue that many courts across the country have been trying to decide.  The California Court of Appeal finally answered this question late last year in the case of Modisette v. Apple Inc.The case has devastating facts. In 2014, the Modisette family was driving through Denton County, Texas on Interstate 35. Their car was stopped in traffic, when Garrett Wilhelm came barreling towards the Modisette's car at a high rate of speed. He was using his iPhone's Facetime application, got distracted, and violently collided with the Modisette's stopped car.  Both parents were seriously injured, and their 5-year-old daughter Moriah was killed.Mr. Wilhelm was criminally prosecuted in Texas for manslaughter.  After settling with Mr. Wilhelm's insurance, the Modisettes sued Apple, arguing that it breached its duty of care to the Modisettes by not imposing a "lockout" feature on Facetime.  Had the iPhone locked out Mr. Wilhelm from using Facetime, he would not have crashed into the Modisette's car.Ultimately, the Court of Appeal rejected the Modisette's argument.  The Court noted that, under the groundbreaking California case of Rowland v. Christian, a court must take public policy into consideration when deciding whether a defendant like Apple owes a duty to the plaintiffs. Multiple factors are used to decide whether a defendant like Apple owes a duty of care, otherwise,  the potential for endless liability is too high.  These factors include 1) the foreseeability of harm; 2) the degree of certainty that plaintiffs suffered injury; 3) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered; 4) the moral blame assigned to the defendant's conduct; 5) the policy of preventing future harm; 6) the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community if a duty is imposed; and 7) the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risks involved.Here, the Court agreed that some of the factors weighed in the Modisette's favor.  Their injuries were a foreseeable consequence of somoene distracted with Facetime, and they suffered serious injuries. However, the Court found particular issue with the remote connection between Apple's conduct and the resulting crash.  Garrett Wilhelm crashed into the Modisette's vehicle--Apple didn't.  While Apple produced the phone and the Facetime App, this was too remote a connection to the resulting harm suffered by the Modisettes.  Apple's design of the iPhone simply made Wilhelm's use of the phone while driving possible--it didn't actually cause the crash or put the danger in play.The Court also noted that imposing liability on Apple would create too high a burden on cell phone manufacturers.  With the passage in 2016 of a provision to California's Vehicle Code allowing iPhone access with a finger tap or swipe, the Court commented that California implicitly recognizes that cell phone access while driving is allowed in some circumstances. Apple is therefore not required to lock out its users, and the company owed no duty to the Modisettes to lock out Garrett Wilhelm from using Facetime while driving.The Modisette case is important because it affirms California law holding that cell phone manufacturers are not liable to those injured by distracted drivers.  While cell phones have increased the possibility of distracted driving, ultimately, it is up to each and every driver to put the phone down and make safe choices.For questions about your Los Angeles case, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.