Who is ultimately responsible when it comes to distracted driving while having phone sex?
In June 2022, Thomas Roberts, a 55-year-old trucker from Houston, was involved in a fatal rollover crash after he failed to stop for a previous crash that was being tended to by emergency personnel.
According to reports, the two drivers in the previous crash were instructed to remain in their vehicles on the shoulder of I-45 as emergency crews worked the scene. While firefighters were assisting the two motorists, Roberts failed to stop at the crash site and drove into the back of one of the vehicles.
The collision caused Roberts’ truck and trailer to overturn onto the vehicle, crushing it. The driver of the vehicle, 27-year-old Jocelyn Ortega, was pronounced dead at the scene. According to reports, the18-wheeler also struck and seriously injured two Centerville Volunteer firefighters who were on the scene.
It was determined that the crash was a result of distracted driving. According to court documents, Roberts was “engaging in phone or video sex” at the time of the incident. When Roberts was pulled from the crash, his pants were down, and bystanders had to “make him decent” after pulling him from his truck.
As a result of the crash, Roberts was charged with one count of criminal negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated assault against a public servant. Roberts pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced to two years for criminal negligent homicide and 50 years for each count of aggravated assault. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. Roberts would later appeal the sentence, but was ultimately denied.
In June 2024, Ortega’s family filed a suit seeking punitive damages for the crash. The suit, however, was not brought against Roberts. Instead, it was filed against Inger Washington and G.A.P Trucking, a company owned by Washington. So, who was Inger Washington, and what did they have to do with the crash?
According to court documents, Washington was, as he described her, Roberts’ “lady friend” and was on the other end of the phone when the crash occurred. Additionally, Washington was also a commercial driver.
Attorneys for the Ortegas argued that Washington engaged in phone sex with Roberts even though she knew Roberts was driving and that she “was a proximate cause of the collision and the injuries to the plaintiffs.”
“Washington, as a commercial driver herself, knew exactly how dangerous driving an 18-wheeler is, but nevertheless engaged in phone or video sex with Roberts even though she knew, or should have known, that he was driving and that her role in the communication made her a party to his breach of duty to the public,” the suit read.
The trial court ruled that the claims against Washington “have no basis in law given that the facts alleged, if true, do not entitle [appellants] to relief as a matter of law.” An appeal of that ruling was filed.
Specifically, attorneys for the Ortegas argued that “Texas law does and must impose a duty of reasonable care on [a] remote participant in [a] call/video to refrain from distracting a driver.”
On Thursday, June 4, the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. In its decision, the appeals court concluded that “a remote cellphone caller owes no duty to the general public to control the conduct of a call recipient who is operating a vehicle.”
While the case against Washington was ultimately dismissed, it raises valid questions about callers’ responsibility to limit potential distractions for drivers. LL
Credit: Source link
