From a serious crash to a minor fender bender, car accidents take a devastating emotional and financial toll on the people involved. Common principles of fairness suggest that if a distracting passenger helped cause the crash, they should also be liable to help pay. Unfortunately, deciding which acts are sufficiently distracting enough to warrant liability in comparative negligence law can be complicated. The thought-provoking lawsuit of Christy Robinette versus Old Republic Insurance Company sheds light on this issue, raising the question: Should courts restrict liability for passengers who contribute to distractions?
The case of Christy Robinette versus Old Republic Insurance Company involves a passenger (Robinette) and a driver (Zeno). During a heated argument, Zeno’s car collided with another and injured Robinette. Robinette brought a lawsuit for costs associated with her injuries.
Zeno argued that because Robinette was screaming and cursing at him, she should take some liability for the crash. The court ultimately denied relief based on a few justifications.