dslreports logo
 story category
Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
Mother's daughter sues carrier, phone manufacturer for accident
Jennifer Smith's mother sadly died last year when she was hit by a driver who was distracted while talking on their cellphone. According to the New York Times, Smith is suing both Sprint and the maker of the cellphone (Samsung) for failing to adequately warn consumers of the dangers of driving while talking (or worse texting). "They should've told people from the beginning there was a real risk, and this would’ve never happened," proclaims Smith. Unfortunately for her case, carriers have warned users -- many manuals clearly referencing the dangers to consumers in addition to a number of carrier awareness campaigns. Carriers also obviously have no control over the stupidity of their customers post warning, which is why similar suits of this kind have been dismissed in the past.
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next
NeoandGeo
join:2003-05-10
Harrison, TN

NeoandGeo

Member

.

What an idiot.
90115534 (banned)
Someone is sabotaging me.Finding out who
join:2001-06-03
Kenner, LA

1 recommendation

90115534 (banned)

Member

Re: .

Wow us Americans are so stupid.

Warzau
Premium Member
join:2000-10-26
Naperville, IL

Warzau

Premium Member

Re: .

said by 90115534:

Wow us Americans are so stupid.
With poor grammar to boot.
90115534 (banned)
Someone is sabotaging me.Finding out who
join:2001-06-03
Kenner, LA

90115534 (banned)

Member

Re: .

said by Warzau:

said by 90115534:

Wow us Americans are so stupid.
With poor grammar to boot.
That was the point of it so you would notice. Looks like a lot more people actually noticed it because of the Nazi grammar chiefs.
wvcaver
Premium Member
join:2005-04-17
Millersburg, OH

wvcaver to Warzau

Premium Member

to Warzau
said by Warzau:

said by 90115534:

Wow us Americans are so stupid.
With poor grammar to boot.
I think you still got the point

Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium Member
join:2001-06-11
Downers Grove, IL

Phil to NeoandGeo

Premium Member

to NeoandGeo
said by NeoandGeo:

What an idiot.
That really sums it up.

exocet_cm
Writing
Premium Member
join:2003-03-23
Brooklyn, NY

exocet_cm

Premium Member

Re: .

said by Phil:
said by NeoandGeo:

What an idiot.
That really sums it up.
True. Even more stupid that a lawyer actually accepted the case.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

May not have been against OK law

According to »www.dmv.org/ok-oklahoma/ ··· l_Phones Oklahoma has no laws regarding using cell phones while driving. This would have made the young mans activity legal.

I can't believe Sprint or Samsung are responsible for the actions of this 20 year old guy. Dismissal will be an issue for a judge, and probably for the appellate courts to decide.

It seems very obvious to me that talking while driving is not very safe.
FrontirCynic
join:2006-10-25
Long Beach, CA

FrontirCynic

Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by pandora:

According to »www.dmv.org/ok-oklahoma/ ··· l_Phones Oklahoma has no laws regarding using cell phones while driving. This would have made the young mans activity legal.

I can't believe Sprint or Samsung are responsible for the actions of this 20 year old guy. Dismissal will be an issue for a judge, and probably for the appellate courts to decide.

It seems very obvious to me that talking while driving is not very safe.
whether or not its allowed under the law does not mean the person was or was not negligent. Different issue and standard.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 edit

r81984 to pandora

Premium Member

to pandora
The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident.

It would be the responsiblity of the license bureau to ensure drivers are aware they need to eliminate distractions while driving not a cell phone or phone company.

I hope they counter sue this moron for wasting everyones time with this BS lawsuit and she has to file for bankruptcy.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by r81984:

The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident.
I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by pandora:
said by r81984:

The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident.
I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation.
If he was dialing or texting then yes it would have been distracting, but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger.

People tend to turn their heads and look/glance at their passenger while talking.
pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland

pandora

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by r81984:

but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
zaldy
join:2007-12-07

zaldy to r81984

Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

said by pandora:
said by r81984:

The sad part is talking on a cell is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. This driver was stupid and the cell phone had nothing to do with the accident.
I don't know how exactly he was using the cell phone. If it was via a Bluetooth headset, then maybe it is as distracting as conversation. If he was dialing, or holding a phone to his ear, then I'd disagree. Managing a phone while having conversation is more distracting than having a conversation.
If he was dialing or texting then yes it would have been distracting, but holding a phone to your ear is less distracting than talking to a passenger.

People tend to turn their heads and look/glance at their passenger while talking.
BUT holding the phone to your ear leaves you with one hand only for steering and maybe shifting.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n

Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by zaldy:

BUT holding the phone to your ear leaves you with one hand only for steering and maybe shifting.
This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets.

Not condoning talking while in the car, but you have to find that middle ground.
Texting while driving should be punishable by whip.
There is only one cure for stupid, and if we can't beat it out of you...well, natural selection will help with that one .

I once rode in a car with a friend who texted, with a numerical keyboard. I was sure I was going to die. Not that he was all over the road, on the contrary, he was a good driver - I was just worried about him smacking into someone else that wasn't paying attention and he didn't see because he was texting.

Let me jump on my soap box and say -
People, if you must *talk* to someone CALL THEM. I can say that ANYTHING you have to say cannot be squished into 160 chars. Text messaging is convient, but it's the death of human communication.
ctggzg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-11
USA

ctggzg

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets.
Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone.

ReVeLaTeD
Premium Member
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA

ReVeLaTeD

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

said by ctggzg:

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets.
Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone.
Disagree. And Mythbusters even tested it.

Having a regular conversation - such as letting someone know you're arriving shortly - is no more distracting than attempting to stir coffee while driving, or fumbling with the radio. Having a stressful conversation, however, is definitely distracting because you're emotionally engaged, and your focus dwindles. This is true regardless of Bluetooth.

HOWEVER...

The main problem with people is two-fold. First, having it in your hand IS an issue, because you can't look to your left or your right or to your rear when switching lanes or turning. THAT is a bigger hazard than the stressful communication, because people don't know how to drive as it is. They don't look over their shoulder before switching lanes and just drift, sometimes not even looking in the mirrors (which aren't even showing the true distance of other cars anyway, plus blind spots cause issues).

The phone carrier/manufacturer is not to blame. There are numerous warnings in the documentation. It's just that people don't pay attention to them. This chick needs to be suing the distracted driver and the state, IMO. Distracted driver, well that's obvious. State, for not taking any measures to attempt to cut this practice down. I know that sounds drastic, but that's the way I think.
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL

k1ll3rdr4g0n to ctggzg

Member

to ctggzg
said by ctggzg:

said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:

This is why God created hands free kits/bluetooth headsets.
Studies (and sense) have clearly shown that the conversation itself is much more of a problem than holding the phone.
You must have a very flexible neck. My sense says that if I am not holding the device I can look around and use both hands in the vehicle, I have more attention to the road than on the phone BUT of course I would loose some focus due to the conversation.

Studies cannot lay claim to how everyone's brain works. I multi-task on the computer everyday (Alt-Tab addict), does that mean that I would have the same amount of focus than someone who doesn't multi-task? Everyone's brain is different, everyone thinks differently.

I don't condone either like it said, but you need to find middle ground because as long as cell phones exist it will happen.
zaldy
join:2007-12-07

zaldy

Member

Bottom line is talking or texting is distracting.

BUT talking on the phone is MORE distracting than talking with another passenger. Because when you are on the phone, the person talking to you can not see you and you can not see them too. So you attention will be more focus into conversation unlike if you are talking to your GF beside you. She will understand that you need to stop talking when you are in the middle of turning or what not while if your GF is on the phone she will constantly ask you "you there" questions which you will be pressure to answer.
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR

PDXPLT to pandora

Member

to pandora
said by pandora:

According to »www.dmv.org/ok-oklahoma/ ··· l_Phones Oklahoma has no laws regarding using cell phones while driving. This would have made the young mans activity legal.
That's probably not true. I bet Oklahoma has a law against distracted driving. If the driver was doing something that distracted him sufficiently to cause an accident, whether it be talking on a phone, playing withe radio, reading a magazine, applying makeup (all of which I've seen in traffic), then it would not be legal.

What Oklahoma doesn't have is a law that says talking on a cellphone is prima facie evidence of unsafe driving; the officer must make a determination that in the particular instance in question, the use of the cellphone was distracting, and thus illegal in that particular instance.
Desdinova
Premium Member
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD

Desdinova

Premium Member

Re: May not have been against OK law

"What Oklahoma doesn't have is a law that says talking on a cellphone is prima facie evidence of unsafe driving..."

Seems to me that in this situation the event in question offers pretty clear evidence of just how unsafe it is...

jt8523
@comcast.net

jt8523 to NeoandGeo

Anon

to NeoandGeo
that lady is stupid. it is only common sence that it is not safe to drive and talk or text on cell phone. the lady must not have had common sence. it seem like not have common sence runs in the family.
matrix3D
join:2006-09-27
Middletown, CT

1 recommendation

matrix3D

Member

Re: .

You might want to re-read the post. The lady who is suing -- her mother was killed by a GUY who was using his cell phone. Her mother wasn't using the cell phone. Now, if she had decided to sue the guy who killed her mother because he was using a cell phone while driving (negligence) then she probably has herself a case.
gorehound
join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME

gorehound

Member

Re: .

I agree there.suing the carrier and phone maker will not do anything but a pointless waste of a lawsuit.
ctggzg
Premium Member
join:2005-02-11
USA

ctggzg to matrix3D

Premium Member

to matrix3D
said by matrix3D:

Now, if she had decided to sue the guy who killed her mother because he was using a cell phone while driving (negligence) then she probably has herself a case.
That shouldn't be a civil case either. That kind of stuff is handled under criminal charges such as criminal negligence, vehicular manslaughter, etc. If the guy was found guilty then maybe he should pay restitution.
cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19
Ames, IA

cyclone_z to jt8523

Member

to jt8523
said by jt8523 :

that lady is stupid. it is only common sence that it is not safe to drive and talk or text on cell phone. the lady must not have had common sence. it seem like not have common sence runs in the family.
"Common" sense isn't very common. You might want to try rereading as well. The woman killed was NOT the one on the phone.

Mike
Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA

Mike to NeoandGeo

Mod

to NeoandGeo
she's just gold digging.

I don't see how a disclaimer or even an express warranty will help anything on anything that is common sense. nothing will happen.

BIGMIKE
Q
Premium Member
join:2002-06-07
Gainesville, FL

BIGMIKE to NeoandGeo

Premium Member

to NeoandGeo
same Bullshit gos on Wis gun manufacturer

Friday, October 21, 2005

The House yesterday voted to shield companies that make and sell firearms from lawsuits by the victims of shootings, sending the legislation to the White House and handing the nation's gun lobby a paramount victory it has sought for years.
»www.washingtonpost.com/w ··· 485.html
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan to NeoandGeo

Premium Member

to NeoandGeo
said by NeoandGeo:

What an idiot.
Amen.

Why doesn't she sue the car maker, the local government who built the road, the clothing companies and makeup companies that enabled her daughter to leave the house - while she's at it?
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA

1 edit

jfd15

Member

Re: .

said by nitzan:

said by NeoandGeo:

What an idiot.
Amen.

Why doesn't she sue the car maker, the local government who built the road, the clothing companies and makeup companies that enabled her daughter to leave the house - while she's at it?
exactly...and until we get "loser pays", this b.s. will never end...
trace this back to crooked lawyers and the stooges who do their bidding in Congress(the democrat party)...

Zen6
@rr.com

Zen6

Anon

Re: .

We need tort reform across America.
brianiscool
join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL

brianiscool

Member

sorry

Your lawsuit will be dropped. She should of known better. Thus she suffered the consequences.

••••
brianiscool

brianiscool

Member

Imagine

a warning message each time you send a text or call someone. Then you have to click the ok button lol.

••••••••

Matt3
All noise, no signal.
Premium Member
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC

Matt3

Premium Member

Sigh

How long before cell phones start disabling themselves when they detect a moving signal, like most in-car video solutions? Think I'm crazy? If lawsuits like this are won by stupid, money hungry litigious idiots, it will happen.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Chuckles0
Premium Member
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN

1 recommendation

Chuckles0

Premium Member

$

Yes. Sue the companies because they have more money. Don't sue the dummy on the phone he can't pay enough.

en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

en102

Member

Re: $

That's exactly it.
This reminds me of an old story about lawsuits:

There's a kid riding his bicycle down a country road at night, without a helmet, no lights on the road.
He is riding down the middle of the road and gets hit by a drunk driver, and injured.

Who does the family sue ?
a) Driver (drunk)
b) County/State/City (no lights on the road)
c) Bicycle manufacturer

Answer C.
-Driver doesn't have much money
-County/state/city would go after parents for being neglegent
-Bicycle manufacturer has money, and there's probably some missing warning about driving a bicycle at night w/o a light, protective gear and driving down the middle of the road.

Follow the money.

The Dv8or
Just call me Dong Suck Oh, M.D.
Premium Member
join:2001-08-09
Denver, CO
ARRIS TG862
Cisco 2811
TP-Link Archer AX10

The Dv8or

Premium Member

Re: $

This was an actual case against Cannondale about 15 years ago. A kid was hit by a car while riding on the road at night without the proper gear. The mother sued Cannondale for $7 million for not giving adequate warning or not selling the proper night gear or some shit like that. I just Googled the shit out of it, but couldnt find the lawsuit. I think they settled.

AZ_OGM
join:2007-01-12
Phoenix, AZ

1 recommendation

AZ_OGM

Member

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Forest Gump's words have never been more truer.

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

1 edit

Robert

Premium Member

dup

dup post.

woody7
Premium Member
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

woody7

Premium Member

Re: Tort reform

This has nothing to do with Tort reform,It shouldn't have even got passed the filing stage. All of these so called frivolous suits (or suits in general) go before a judge or some panel in most states, and then they proceed if merited. I agree we need tort reform, but for the right reason. When someone is injured or killed because a manufacturer didn't want to fix a serious problem with their product, a doctor takes out the wrong lung, etc., a bartender gives an obviously intoxicated person another drink, and so on. I agree that suing the car manufacturer, or the gun maker or the phone company or maker should be left out, but what I don't hear from the pro tort reformers is the actual cost that is associated to the suits. For some reason, lawsuits are factored into the cost of everything to day for good or bad. If you are talking about medical malpractice, the actual cost of malpractice suits that win is surprising low. It is a smoke screen. Peace

Hpower
join:2000-06-08
Canyon Country, CA

Hpower

Member

Funny..

Judge: Mam...did you read the manuel? IT SAYS IT THERE CLEARLY! We cannot control stupidity either kthx.

Case dropped. NEXT!

Mother:

Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL

Robert

Premium Member

Tort reform

Even more reason we need tort reform. She's suing the entities with the most money. What a joke.

••••••••••
hackztor2
join:2007-09-03

hackztor2

Member

dumb

This lady needs to grow up. Its been warned by everyone, yet so many people still do it. I bet even she has done it once before.

Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL

Cheese

Premium Member

Um.....

This is common sense that is distracts people? I have a feeling Sprint won't see a day in court for this.
chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA

chemaupr

Member

Drive thru???

If she wins I'm going to order something from every drive thru in my area and have a small accident after order... then I can sue them because they I was eating while driving and the drive thru teller did not warn me..

bemis
Premium Member
join:2008-07-18
united state

bemis

Premium Member

gross

Seriously... this seems even more egregious then the famous hot coffee law suit.

The theory is it's the cell phone provider and manufacturers fault that someone was distracted and crashed?

Ok, so why not sue the vehicle manufacturer for not warning the driver that doing other tasks while operating the vehicle may lead to distraction? Shouldn't there be a nice big, fat, yellow warning plastered on the dashboard and written in 15 different languages?

While we're at it, why not sue the dealer who sold the vehicle for not properly instructing the driver/owner in it's use?

This is a plain and simple money grab, and while I feel sorry for the person who lost their mother, this lawsuit is an embarrassment.

••••••••••

GilbertMark
Premium Member
join:2001-05-02
Gilbert, AZ

1 recommendation

GilbertMark

Premium Member

....

Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia

Premium Member

Re: ....

said by GilbertMark:

Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating.
LMAO! That one made my lunchtime. Seriously though, it sounds like Mickey Dee's hung themselves by their defensive mishaps. The legal team needs to be fired LOL. I think this case is more cut and dry as to how many idiot warnings were given and will be dismissed. I feel sad for anyone losing their mother, but I couldn't sue the tobacco company for what my mother knew might happen and it's the same case here. Even though it may have provided some feelings of satisfaction. She shouldn't embarass herself like this.
dentman42
Premium Member
join:2001-10-02
Columbus, OH

dentman42 to GilbertMark

Premium Member

to GilbertMark
said by GilbertMark:

Hey can Rosie O'Donnell sue a silverware manufacturer for making her fat? I bet there are no warnings on silverware that warn about the dangers of extreme eating.
Nah, she didn't have time for silverware. She just shovelled it in with her hands.

Blah
@comcast.net

1 recommendation

Blah

Anon

It's Not my Fault!

No change or reform of the law is going to change the currently mentality that people have succumbed to. The attitude is "It's not my fault." Blaming credit card companies because you ran up $30k in bills shopping for clothes. you are right, running a business thats to make money is wrong and evil. Managing your own finances is the companies fault. Its the same instance here. Sure it is sad that her mother was killed by the person not bright enough to frive and talk, but its neither the Cell phone company or the cell providers fault. I saw an article last week were a woman was going to sue CSX because her 4 year old child ran onto the tracks chasing his dog and was hit by a train. The boy survived with minor injusries, but she insists that this was CSX's fault because they do not have fences around their tracks. she should also consider a lawsuit against her dog, he did take off running. The point is that these lawsuits are way too common, and way too ridiculous. I think that people who file these lawsuits and are unsuccessful should have to pay 40% of the amount that they sued for to the local school district. There 2 problems solved.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Before we poo-poo this entirely...

... the guy who invented the thing, Martin Cooper, once told a state forum back in the 1960s that there should be a lock on the dial to keep people from using it while driving. And since these things are constantly tracking our location (and therefore our speed), a driving lockout is certainly is a feasible thing to do.

My Garmin GPS systems have always warned me about the danger of driving while manipulating the GPS, and I have to punch past a warning screen and turn off a safety feature (turned on, by default) in order to use the thing while the car is moving.

That all said, I DO NOT support a ban.

According to his own statements, it wasn't the complexity of using the phone that distracted this driver, it was the intensity of his conversation. He forgot that job #1 when operating a motor vehicle is safety.

Police have been operating mobile radiotelephones for half a century. Rather than banning technology, police departments train the officers to use it in a safe manner.
milrtime83
join:2009-11-04
Katy, TX

milrtime83

Member

Re: Before we poo-poo this entirely...

A driving lockout is not feasible based on speed. The speed you are going doesn't indicate that you are driving. There are plenty of people that are passenger's in cars, buses, etc. that would also get locked out\ if you base it only on the speed you are going.
ackman
join:2000-10-04
Atlanta, GA

ackman

Member

Line up the attorneys

How many accidents were caused by putting on makeup, or munching a burger, or tuning the radio?

Plasticman
Will Work For Bandwidth
Premium Member
join:2002-09-06
Johnston, RI

Plasticman

Premium Member

Re: Line up the attorneys

said by ackman:

How many accidents were caused by putting on makeup, or munching a burger, or tuning the radio?
I know of one..... My buddy was pulling out of his drive way and a lady hit him while putting nail polish on while driving down the road.
LineNoise
join:2006-06-25
Downers Grove, IL

LineNoise

Member

stupid

Shit, they can't catch a break. They finally get iPCS to quit suing them and the consumers start back up. The justice system needs to punish these frivolous lawsuit.s

Cheese
Premium Member
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL

Cheese

Premium Member

Re: stupid

Can I sue the insurance company for allowing an 87 year old to drive, and due to this, hit me and total my car?

»photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/ph ··· 8286.jpg

Oh wait, I did get a lawsuit! Not because of the question above, but that was part of my reasoning.

SimbaSeven
I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
·StarLink

1 recommendation

SimbaSeven

Member

Re: stupid

Holy crap dude..

I agree on that one. Once you get to a specific age, you need to redo your driving test. My G-Grandpa pulled out in front of a semi, it was literally feet between the semi and his car (which also had my Grandma and my uncle in it).

I think my grandma took his keys from that point on.
milrtime83
join:2009-11-04
Katy, TX

milrtime83

Member

...

I think she forgot some people from the lawsuit like Toyota, Ford, the municipality, the stoplight manufacturer, and lastly, the one person that it might make sense to sue....the driver of the other vehicle.
Yezidi
join:2009-11-17
New York, NY

Yezidi

Member

Sad Story

It's a tragedy that Ms. Smith lost her mother due to the negligence of this 20 year old guy but I really can't see this lawsuit surviving. In a just society she and her family would have the right to decide if he lives or dies but unfortunately she has no real chance of achieving justice for her mother, legally. This lawsuit is doomed.

nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium Member
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA

nixen

Premium Member

Re: Sad Story

said by Yezidi:

It's a tragedy that Ms. Smith lost her mother due to the negligence of this 20 year old guy but I really can't see this lawsuit surviving. In a just society she and her family would have the right to decide if he lives or dies but unfortunately she has no real chance of achieving justice for her mother, legally. This lawsuit is doomed.
It may never have been intended to go to court. Many lawsuits are filed with the knowledge that there's a non-trivial chance that the target of the suit will simply offer a no admittance of fault settlement to make the suit go away.
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next