On Christmas Eve the year before, on December 24, 2014, the couple James and Bethany Modisette was on a road in Texas (United States) when he needed to slow down his car due to congested traffic. It was then that a 20 year old young man FaceTime while driving he did not notice the slowdown and ended up hitting the rear of the couple's car at 100km / h.
The collision wounded the couple and subsequently resulted in the death of their five-year-old daughter, who was taken to the hospital but could not resist the injuries.
A document (PDF) published on Courthouse News shows that the Modisette blamed Apple by the accident, stating that she “failed to install and implement a patent to‘ block ’the ability of drivers to use the FaceTime app on the iPhone when driving a motor vehicle”.
The patent to which the document refers refers to one registered by Ma in 2008, whose description “Driver handheld computing device lock-out”, that is, a feature that would block the use of the smartphone when it is in the hands of those who drive a vehicle.
For being almost nine years old, the family says in the process that "Apple has consistently and continuously failed to implement a safer and alternative design that would block and prevent the use of FaceTime while driving". In addition, the family suggests that "the cost to change the design would be minimal" and that "there is no disadvantage in implementing the technology". However, the patent does not mention any specific application and it is not as simple as it seems to turn it from an idea into something functional.
The young man who drove assumed that the Police was using FaceTime on his iPhone 6 Plus when the car hit the app was still running when police arrived at the scene. It is worth remembering that, unfortunately, there is no law in Texas that proves the use of cell phones by drivers over 18 years of age.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple acted with the intent to cause harm, "deliberately and ignoring another's disregard for the rights and security" in order to profit. However, the document does not require the technology to be deployed, it is just presented as an argument; the request to cover damages, medical expenses and other remuneration that it will be up to the court to decide.
(via AppleInsider, Patently Apple)
