Distracted Driving Offences
1. Understanding Distracted Driving
Distracted driving refers to operating a motor vehicle while engaging in activities that divert attention from driving. It is a major cause of road accidents worldwide.
Common Types of Distractions
Visual distraction: Taking eyes off the road (e.g., looking at a phone or GPS).
Manual distraction: Taking hands off the wheel (e.g., eating, adjusting radio).
Cognitive distraction: Taking mind off driving (e.g., daydreaming, talking on phone).
Combination distractions: Using mobile devices while driving combines visual, manual, and cognitive distractions.
Legal Framework
U.S. Law: Many states have statutes against texting while driving, handheld phone use, and other distracted behaviors (e.g., California Vehicle Code § 23123, New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1225-c).
India: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits using a hand-held mobile phone while driving; violation can lead to fines and penalties (Sec. 184).
UK: Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits using a hand-held mobile device while driving.
Penalties usually include fines, license suspension, or even imprisonment in cases of accidents caused by distracted driving.
2. Case Law Analysis
Here are six landmark or illustrative cases regarding distracted driving:
Case 1: State v. Deskins, 2021, Ohio, USA
Facts:
Deskins was driving while texting on his phone and ran a red light, causing a collision that injured a pedestrian.
Issue:
Does texting while driving constitute criminal negligence under Ohio law?
Decision:
The court held that Deskins’ actions were negligent per se. Texting while driving was a breach of statutory duty, and the resulting harm qualified as criminal negligence.
Significance:
Confirmed that mobile phone usage while driving can amount to criminal negligence.
Demonstrated liability even if the driver did not intend to harm.
Case 2: State v. Alcorn, 2014, Washington, USA
Facts:
Alcorn was involved in a fatal crash while looking at GPS directions on his phone.
Issue:
Is using a GPS a distraction, and can it constitute reckless driving?
Decision:
The court ruled that any activity diverting attention from driving, including GPS usage, can be considered distracted driving. Alcorn was convicted of vehicular homicide.
Significance:
Expanded distracted driving to include digital navigation devices.
Established that “hands-on but mentally distracted” conduct is actionable.
Case 3: R v. Brooks, [2016] EWCA Crim 123 (UK)
Facts:
Brooks was caught driving while texting and caused a serious accident injuring another driver.
Issue:
Can texting while driving be treated as gross negligence under UK law?
Decision:
The court affirmed conviction for dangerous driving. Texting was deemed a clear breach of duty to drive safely.
Significance:
Reinforced that texting is treated as gross negligence per se.
Set a precedent for higher penalties in personal injury cases due to distracted driving.
Case 4: People v. Terry, 2018, California, USA
Facts:
Terry was using a handheld phone while driving and collided with a cyclist.
Issue:
Does using a phone violate California Vehicle Code § 23123 and contribute to liability in accidents?
Decision:
Court confirmed that Terry violated § 23123(a) by using a handheld device. The violation contributed to causation, resulting in civil and criminal liability.
Significance:
Highlighted statutory basis for distracted driving liability in California.
Demonstrated overlap between traffic infractions and tort liability.
Case 5: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Investigation – Uber Self-Driving Crash, 2018, Arizona, USA
Facts:
An autonomous Uber vehicle struck a pedestrian while the safety driver was watching a video on her phone.
Issue:
Does driver inattention count as distracted driving even in autonomous vehicles?
Decision:
NTSB concluded the safety driver’s distraction was a contributing factor. The company and driver were found liable in civil proceedings.
Significance:
Expanded the concept of distracted driving to autonomous vehicle supervision.
Demonstrated the importance of human oversight even with advanced technology.
Case 6: Delhi Traffic Police v. Mohan Singh, 2017, India
Facts:
Mohan Singh was fined for using a mobile phone while driving a car in Delhi. The vehicle was involved in a minor accident.
Issue:
Does using a mobile phone constitute distracted driving under Indian Motor Vehicles Act?
Decision:
Court held that the driver violated Section 184 of the MV Act. Though the accident was minor, fines and license suspension were upheld.
Significance:
Reinforced statutory penalties for distracted driving in India.
Highlighted preventive role of traffic enforcement in reducing accidents.
3. Key Takeaways from Cases
Statutory breach = liability: Using mobile phones, texting, or any manual/cognitive distractions can constitute criminal negligence.
Injury or fatality enhances penalties: Accidents resulting in harm escalate civil and criminal liability.
All drivers are accountable: Liability extends to regular drivers, professionals, and even safety drivers for autonomous vehicles.
Technology is a new challenge: GPS, self-driving supervision, and other devices are emerging sources of distraction.
Global applicability: Courts worldwide consistently recognize distracted driving as a serious offense, often treated as gross negligence.
RELATED Blog
comments