Driver Sued For Updating Facebook In Fatal Crash

An anonymous reader writes "21-year-old Chicago motorist Araceli Beas has been accused of attempting to update her Facebook page on her cell phone when she allegedly struck and killed 70-year-old Raymond Veloz. The victim's daughter, Regina Cabrales, has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court, asking for an unspecified amount of money. Cabrales alleges in her suit that Beas operated her vehicle without keeping a proper and sufficient focus, drove while using an electronic communication device, and failed to slow down to avoid an accident. As proof, she points to the fact that Beas' Facebook page showed an update posted at 7:54 AM on December 7, 2010, which is the same time that Veloz's cell phone records showed a call being made to 911."

Civil versus criminal law suits

[erroneus]

Criminal suits ==> "Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
Civil suits ==> "Preponderance of evidence"

As this is a civil suit (wrongful death is civil), the rules for civil suits apply. Most knee-jerk reactions want to look to "reasonable doubt" and then look into any time disparities among the phone, Facebook and other services and factors involved in the establishment of this evidence. (for example, timezone data could have significant impact on the reported time(s) from the phone company, the 9-1-1 service, Facebook and more.)

If all of those time issues are in correct synchronization, then the preponderance of evidence rule would probably result in the plaintiff winning the case.

Might not be entirely the driver's fault.

[chemicaldave]

FTFA

Veloz had exited his vehicle after getting into a minor accident with another motorist at around 7:30 AM. He was standing near the other driver’s vehicle exchanging information when he was struck by Beas. His right leg was partially severed, and he lost too much blood. Veloz was pronounced dead at around 9:30 AM in a nearby hospital. Beas told police that she had been temporarily blinded by the sun at the time of the collision, which resulted in a ticket for striking a pedestrian in the roadway. The driver involved in the earlier minor collision with Veloz told officers at the time that they had been temporarily blinded by the sun as well. Beas’ mother, Rosario Rodriguez, came to her daughter’s defense claiming that she posted the Facebook update as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home, which is located two miles away from where the crash occurred.

So. The woman could very well have been unable to see due to the sun. Was the victim standing in the road? Did they move their vehicles to the side of the road? It's impossible to prove that the driver was using her phone at the time of the accident.

Subject of Facebook Message

[diskofish]

Rosario Rodriguez said her daughter, Araceli Beas, posted that she needed to go to the gym as she sat in her car while waiting for it to warm up outside her boyfriend’s home near East 80th Street and South Commercial Avenue last Dec. 27.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-womans-mom-denies-facebook-allegation-20110215,0,4906576.story [chicagotribune.com]

Re:Same time?

[ElmoGonzo]

Assuming the FB update was made from the young woman's portable phone, someone will suponea the cell phone records. I was on a jury in 2002 where cell phone records were introduced as evidence and they had very detailed timestamps on them. That should resolve the issue.

Re:Whoooops

[natehoy]

Summary is confusing, but the article is a bit better. Here's a (hopefully clearer) summary.

- Veloz (pedestrian victim who was killed ) was on the phone with 911 at or about the time he was struck in regards to a separate minor accident that had just happened between him and another driver. For clarity, let's call this driver "Frank".

- Beas (driver who killed Veloz) struck and killed Veloz while Veloz was on the phone with 911 operator discussing the separate minor accident. Veloz had exited his vehicle and was talking to "Frank" about their minor accident, which means Veloz was presumably either in the road, or just at the road's edge.

- Facebook published a post from Beas' cell phone at some time very close to the time of the accident.

- Veloz's daughter is suing for wrongful death and is alleging that Beas was paying attention to her cell at the time.

So, no, Beas did not update her Facebook status instead of calling 911. The 911 call had been placed by Veloz in relation to his accident with "Frank". Beas' update to Facebook happened at about the same time as that call was going on.

In fact, while it's possible she was distracted, it's by no means proven. According to the article:

  - Beas claims, and it is corroborated by relatives, that the post was typed and submitted when she was in her car two miles away waiting for it to warm up. It's quite possible that the post was published on Facebook a few minutes after it was posted from the cell phone (I have this happen on my Blackberry all the time, and the delays can be 5 minutes or so, easily enough to drive the two miles from where Beas claimed to post her update to the spot where the accident occurred). I know I've hardly ever seen a Facebook update appear from my cell within a minute. So cell company logs of data usage should prove the timing of this (yea or nay), when correlated with cell company logs of Veloz's 911 call.

  - Beas claims and "Frank" corroborates that the sun was blinding and that it's quite possible that Beas simply did not see Veloz standing in the road due to sun glare. "Frank" claimed that he and Veloz were similarly blinded by the sun (it's not stated whether this was a contributing factor to the accident between Veloz and "Frank").

I'm the last person to defend someone who is actually distracted by a cell phone or electronic device while driving. But, given the information provided in a couple of articles, it just doesn't appear to be the case. Beas has testimony (albeit biased) that her Facebook update was not happening during the accident, and testimony (from "Frank", who is presumably unbiased) that the sun was a major factor (which could explain why Beas didn't see a pedestrian in the road where a reasonable driver wouldn't necessary be looking for one).

I sympathize with Veloz's daughter, but the apparent moral of this story is simple. Don't stand in the road between the sun and an oncoming car. A temporarily-dazzled driver might not see you. Even the best driver in the world can't instantly stop their car when they get dazzled by the sun.