Cell Phone Cases by State Court
Alabama [Top]
1. McClelland v. Simon-Williamson Clinic, P.C., 933 So.2d 367 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)
- There was no "dual purpose" in the doctor's commute to work to place him within the course and scope of employment for the purpose of imposing vicarious liability to his employer.
- There was no evidence indicating that the doctor altered or deviated from his typical commute because of the phone call, and the 'coming and going rule' insulated the employer from liability.
Alaska [Top]
- - -
Arizona [Top]
- - -
Arkansas [Top]
1. Campbell v. Randal Tyler Ford Mercury, Inc., 70 Ark.App. 35, 13 S.W.3d 916 (Ark.App. 2000).
- An employee who struck and killed a man while on his way to work and making a phone call to his employer was not within the course and scope of employment for the purpose of imposing vicarious liability upon his employer.
- Calling his employer to inform them of his lateness was not within defendant's job duties; rather it was common courtesy and not required by his employer.
2. Harris v. JSK Enterprises, Inc., No. CA 03-1424, 2004 WL 2397837 (Ark.App. Oct. 27, 2004).
- The trial court's decision to prohibit mentioning punitive damages during voir dire or the opening statement was upheld when defendant caused an automobile accident while on a cell phone.
- There is a presumption against punitive damages, and there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to restrict any jury instruction about punitive damages in this case.
California [Top]
1. Dionicio v. Homes, No. G029477, 2002 WL 1614113 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. July 23, 2002)
- There was no reversible error in allowing a telephone bill to be introduced at trial showing that defendant was not engaging in cell phone activity at the time of causing an auto accident that killed plaintiffs' son.
- Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was distracted from driving because of cell phone usage at the time of the accident.
2. Miller v. American Greetings Corp., 161 Cal. App. 4th 1055, 74 Cal. Rptr.3d 776 (Cal.App. 2d Dist. 2008)
- Vicarious liability could not be imposed upon defendant's employer when there was no evidence the driver was talking on his cell phone with his co-worker at the time of the accident.
3. Steele v. Cingular Wireless LLC, No. A112870, 2007 WL 2456104 (Cal.App. 1st Aug. 30, 2007)
- Defendant's employer was not vicariously liable when no connection was established between the defendant's cell phone usage at the time of causing an automobile accident and the defendant's employment, and when it was mere conjecture to determine that the defendant was talking on his cell phone at the time of the automobile accident.
- A products liability action against Cingular Wireless for manufacturing the phone at issue was also dismissed.
4. Mettler v. Spaeth, No. C039608, 2002 WL 31623686 (Call.App. 3 Dist., Dec. 21, 2002)
- Defendant was not negligent as a matter of law when he was engaged in a cell phone conversation at the time of causing an automobile accident.
- However, the jury was free to infer, based on testimony evidence that defendant was conversing on his cell phone at the time of the collision, that defendant was not fully focused on the traffic in front of him.
Colorado [Top]
- - -
Connecticut [Top]
1. Bayk v. Rodgers, No. CV0750140428S, 2008 WL 4514371 (Conn.Super. Sept. 6, 2008)
- Defendant's employer was not vicariously liable when defendant was not furthering his employer's business through his cell phone usage and had not started his work but was commuting to work at the time he caused an automobile accident.
- Therefore, defendant was outside the course and scope of his employment at the time of causing the automobile accident.
Delaware [Top]
- - -
District of Columbia [Top]
1. Butts v. United States, 822 A.2d 407 (D.C.App. 2003)
- Evidence, including cell phone records that driver was talking on a cell phone at the time of an automobile accident, was relevant to prove negligence.
Florida [Top]
- - -
Georgia [Top]
1. Clo White Co. v. Lattimore, 263 Ga. App. 839, 590 S.E.2d 381 (2003)
- Because there was evidence that the employee-tortfeasor may have been on his cell phone and calling his employer's office at the time of an automobile accident, a jury question was created as to the employer's potential vicarious liability for the injuries to plaintiff arising out of the accident.
2. Kecskes v. City of Mount Zion, 300 Ga.App. 348, 685 S.E.2d 329 (Ga.App. 2009)
- A driver was negligent when he struck a utility pole after reaching for his cell phone and losing control of his automobile as a result.
3. Hunter v. Modern Continental Const. Co., Inc., 287 Ga. App. 689, 652 S.E.2d 583 (2007)
- There was sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether the defendant's employer was vicariously liable for plaintiff's injuries arising out of an automobile accident while the defendant was commuting to work and talking on his cell phone.
- The fact that defendant was commuting to work at the time of the accident could be overcome if it was proven that the nature of his cell phone call was work-related.
4. Foster v. State, 269 Ga.App. 514, 604 S.E.2d 598 (2004)
- Defendant was found guilty of reckless driving, in part because there was evidence that he took his eyes off the road to retrieve his cell phone while traveling at high speeds.
Hawaii [Top]
- - -
Idaho [Top]
- - -
Illinois [Top]
1. Hiscott v. Peters, 324 Ill. App.3d 114, 257 Ill. Dec. 847, 754 N.E.2d 839 (2d Dist. 2001)
- Telephone records showing that the defendant had been using a cell phone immediately before an automobile accident was relevant circumstantial evidence in establishing negligence.
2. Pertinen v. Swick, No. 00 C 2791, 2002 WL 1008462 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2002) (applying Illinois law)
- Telephone records indicating that a cell phone had been used frequently by the defendant on the day that she caused an automobile accident were not sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the parents negligently entrusted the car to an unfit driver.
Indiana [Top]
1. Williams v. Cingular Wireless, 809 N.E.2d 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
- Cingular Wireless did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff by selling a cell phone to a customer, and was therefore not negligent when the customer was using that cell phone at the time of causing a car accident.
- Moreover, it was not foreseeable that the sale of the cell phone at issue would necessarily result in an automobile accident, and proximate cause was not established to create negligence.
2. Buchanan ex rel. Buchanan v. Vowell, No. 49A02-0909-CV-873, 2010 WL 1904572 (Ind. Ct. App. May 12, 2010
- A sufficient claim of negligence was brought against a driver's mother, when the driver struck a pedestrian while intoxicated and engaged in a cell phone conversation with her mother.
- The court recognized that the driver's activity was tortious, and by knowingly encouraging her tortious activity by calling the driver and distracting her, the mother may be held jointly liable for the pedestrian's injuries.
Iowa [Top]
- - -
Kansas [Top]
- - -
Kentucky [Top]
1. Easterling v. Man-O-War Automotive, Inc., 223 S.W.3d 852 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007)
- An automobile dealership was not vicariously liable for injuries sustained by a passenger when the dealership sales manager, driving a demonstrator vehicle, collided with a parked car while reaching for a cell phone.
- Because the driver was on his way to a concert at the time of the accident, he was on a purely personal mission and therefore not within the course and scope of his employment for the purposes of imposing vicarious liability upon his employer.
Louisiana [Top]
1. Ellender v. Neff Rental, Inc., 965 So.2d 898 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2007)
- A driver was in the scope and course of his employment when using an employer-provided cell phone at the time of the accident to conduct business on behalf of his employer, and this cell phone use directly contributed to the accident.
- His employer was therefore vicariously liable under the theory of respondeat superior.
2. Doyle v. McKinney, 732 So.2d 128 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1999)
- Defendant was found to be the principal cause of an automobile accident, due in part to testimony evidence that he was talking on his cell phone just prior to the accident.
3. Hager v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Transp. And Development, 978 So.2d 454 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008)
- A motorist was 60% at fault for an automobile accident when she was inattentively driving due, in part, to her diverted attention to an inactive cell phone.
4. Proactive Therapy v. Yellow Book, USA, 880 So.2d 119 (La.App. 3d Cir. 2004)
- For the purposes of receiving workers' compensation benefits, the claimant had entered the course and scope of employment before her car accident. She was making and receiving work-related cell phone calls right before her accident, which placed her within the course and scope of employment.
5. McCormick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 870 So.2d 547 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004)
- A motorist was solely at fault for an automobile accident when she was distracted by talking on her cell phone and not focusing on the lane of traffic in front of her.
6. Perkins v. Allstate Indem. Ins. Co., 821 So.2d 647 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002)
- The court held that a passing motorist and a motorist turning left into a parking lot while using a cell phone were equally at fault for a collision.
- The plaintiff was distracted by her cell phone activity and was not focused on her driving at the time of the accident.
7. Wilkerson v. Kansas City Southern Ry., 772 So.2d 268 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000)
- An inattentive driver, who was killed by a train while crossing the train tracks, was 100% at fault for the incident because she was talking on a cell phone at the time of the accident. The driver was distracted by her phone conversation, directly leading to her failure to yield to the oncoming train.
Maine [Top]
- - -
Maryland [Top]
- - -
Massachusetts [Top]
1. Commonwealth v. McGrath, 805 N.E.2d 508 (Mass.App. 2004)
- A prosecutor was permitted to introduce evidence that the defendant had a cell phone in his hand upon leaving his car, thereby inviting the jury to infer his cell phone use at the time of a vehicular homicide.
Michigan [Top]
1. Lauseng ex rel. Kemeny v. Zink, No. 287995, 2008 WL 5194514 (Mich.App. Dec. 17, 2009)
- There was no sufficient evidence that defendant was talking on her cell phone at the time of the accident to create negligence. Furthermore, in Michigan, cell phone use while driving does not constitute negligence per se, and even if defendant was talking on her cell phone when she struck the decedent, other factors supported the conclusion that she was using reasonable care.
2. People v. Hyun, No. 183510, 1996 WL 33348862 (Mich.App. Nov. 26, 1996)
- The court determined that a reasonable juror could infer that the defendant was acting in a grossly negligent manner when the evidence established that he was operating a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone, not paying attention to his driving, and not looking at the road.
3. McCuish v. Jaffe, No. 286807, 2009 WL 3050900 (Mich.App. Sept. 24, 2009)
- Although it was alleged that the defendant driver was talking on her cell phone at the exact time of an automobile accident, the evidence did not permit a reasonable inference that the cell phone usage distracted the driver.
- Lack of evidence about a specific time of the accident and no witness observation only allowed the jury to speculate as to whether the defendant was in fact using her cell phone at the time of the collision.
Minnesota [Top]
1. Johnson v. Rivera, No. C1-98-1922, 1999 WL 343860 (Minn.App. June 1, 1999)
- Defendant was not acting within the course and scope of her employment for the purpose of imposing vicarious liability upon her employer, when she caused an automobile accident on the way home from work while reaching for a cell phone.
- The cell phone activity was personal in nature, and the defendant was not being of service to her employer at the time of the accident.
2. State v. Jackson, No. A05-2483, 2006 WL 2865468 (Minn.App. Oct. 10, 2006)
- Eyewitness testimony that defendant was talking on his cell phone while driving was enough to establish that he failed to exercise due care, and the lower court had sufficient evidence to find him guilty of inattentive driving.
Mississippi [Top]
- - -
Missouri [Top]
- - -
Montana [Top]
- - -
Nebraska [Top]
- - -
Nevada [Top]
- - -
New Hampshire [Top]
- - -
New Jersey [Top]
1. O'Toole v. Carr, 175 N.J. 421, 815 A.2d 471 (2003)
- Driver's negligence could not be imputed to his employer for the purposes of imposing vicarious liability, as it was disputed whether he was conducting work-related business on his cell phone at the time of causing a car accident.
- Further, the purpose of his commute was determined to be unrelated to the activity of his business.
2. Scianni v. Suriano, 2007 WL 506206 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)
- Records of plaintiff's cell phone billing history was properly admitted in trial, as they were consequential to establishing plaintiff's negligence in causing an automobile accident.
New Mexico [Top]
- - -
New York [Top]
1. Morano v. Slattery Skanska, Inc., 18 Misc.3d 464, 846 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y.Sup. 2007)
- Plaintiff was entitled to defendant's cell phone records, which would disclose calls transmitted or received by her on the date of an automobile accident, and which could establish negligence per se under New York law.
2. Lowell v. Peters, 3 A.D.3d 778, 770 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2004)
- Defendant was negligent per se when he caused an automobile accident by running a red light while talking on his cell phone.
3. People v. Neville, 190 Misc.2d 432, 737 N.Y.S.2d 251 (N.Y.Just.Ct. 2002)
- Statute prohibiting the use of hand-held cell phones while operating a motor vehicle on New York public highways was not overbroad or vague, was reasonable in its intentions, and exceptions to the statute's requirements bore reasonable relation to the desired legislative purpose.
4. People v. Campanaro, 19 Misc.3d 1116(A), 862 N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y.City Ct. 2008)
- Driver failed to rebut the presumption that he was engaged in a cell phone call at the time of an accident, and was therefore negligent per se.
5. People v. Deep, 12 Misc.3d 1137, 821 N.Y.S.2d 381 (N.Y.City Ct. 2006)
- Driver who made a cell phone call while stopped at a red light was not guilty of violating New York's law prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving a motor vehicle on public highways.
- The vehicle must be in motion in order for the driver to violate the law.
6. Silber v. Motorola, Inc., 274 A.D.2d 511, 711 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2000)
- Actions of a cell phone cradle manufacturer and installer were not a proximate cause of an automobile accident for the purposes of imposing liability when the driver was distracted by a problem with the cradle and caused the accident.
7. Feeney v. Holeman, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 04138, 2010 WL 1912651 (N.Y.A.D. May 11, 2010)
- In an action against a town and county alleging that they were negligent in the maintenance of a road where an accident occurred, the colliding motorist's negligent cell phone usage contributed to the severing of the proximate cause between the town and county's maintenance of the road and the accident.
North Carolina [Top]
- - -
North Dakota [Top]
- - -
Ohio [Top]
1. Cleveland v. English, Ohio App. 8 Dist. No. 92591, 2009 WL 3043572 (Ohio App. Sept. 24, 2009)
- When a witness to an automobile accident observed one of the drivers talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident, sufficient evidence was presented to establish that the driver's full time and attention was not on his driving.
2. Cleveland v. Isaacs, 91 Ohio App.3d 360, 632 N.E.2d 928 (Ohio App. 1993)
- Driver was found guilty under Cleveland city ordinance for operating a motor vehicle without giving full time and attention to its operation when an officer witnessed the driver talking on his cell phone while driving.
Oklahoma [Top]
1. Morgenstern v. Knight, 134 P.3d 897 (Okla.Civ.App. Div. 1 2006)
- The use of a cell phone while driving an automobile which is involved in an accident, without more, does not create an issue of fact as to whether that driver is guilty of contributory negligence.
Oregon [Top]
- - -
Pennsylvania [Top]
- - -
Rhode Island [Top]
- - -
South Carolina [Top]
- - -
South Dakota [Top]
- - -
Tennessee [Top]
- - -
Texas [Top]
1. Farrell v. Commercial Structures and Interiors, Inc., No. 05-02-00031, 2002 WL 31411022 (Tex.App. Dallas Oct. 28, 2002)
- The fact that the driver was required by his employer to be on his cell phone at the time he caused an automobile accident was not sufficient to place the driver within the course and scope of his employment for the purposes of imposing vicarious liability upon his employer.
2. TXI Transp. Co. v. Hughes, 224 S.W.3d 870 (Tex.App. Fort Worth 2007)
- Defendants were prohibited from cross-examining a witness about a driver's alleged cell phone usage at the time of an automobile accident when there was evidence connecting the alleged cell phone call to the driving.
3. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 575 S.W.2d 92 (Tex.Civ.App. 1978
- Installer of a mobile phone unit in an automobile was liable in a product liability action for injuries caused an automobile accident.
- The defectively installed mobile phone unit came loose, causing the driver to become distracted and cause the accident.
Utah [Top]
- - -
Vermont [Top]
- - -
Virginia [Top]
- - -
Washington [Top]
1. Phibbs v. Odell, 121 Wash. App. 1008 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2004)
- The mere claim that a driver was contributorily negligent in an automobile accident because he was allegedly talking on his cell phone while driving, without any additional evidence, is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
West Virginia [Top]
- - -
Wisconsin [Top]
- - -
Wyoming [Top]
- - -
