Last week, a jury in Corpus Christi, Texas awarded $21 million in damages to a woman who was struck by a Coca-Cola driver who had been talking on her cell phone at the time of the accident. The plaintiff’s attorneys were able to successfully argue that Coca-Cola’s cell phone policy for its drivers was “vague and ambiguous.” They also suggested that Coca-Cola was aware of the dangers but “withheld this information from its employee driver,” which led directly to the circumstances that caused the accident.
“From the time I took the Coca Cola driver’s testimony and obtained the company’s inadequate cell phone driving policy, I knew we had a corporate giant with a huge safety problem on our hands,” said Thomas J.
Henry, one of the plaintiff’s attorneys.
Coca-Cola disagreed with the verdict and, in a statement, expressed its plans to appeal:
“This case was tried because the parties could not come to an agreement on damages. We have accepted responsibility for the accident. We understand that this verdict is a response to a plea from plaintiff’s counsel to the jury to ban all cell phone use while driving.
“Coca-Cola Refreshments’ cell phone policy, which requires the use of a hands-free device when operating a motor vehicle, is completely consistent with, and in fact, exceeds the requirements of Texas law. Coca-Cola Refreshments values the well-being of all citizens in the communities in which we operate. There is no discernible connection between the damages awarded in this case and the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Although we respect the verdict of the jury, we plan to appeal.”
Nevertheless, the case does emphasize the need for all companies to have a clear cell phone use policy for their drivers. In a recent blog post, Matt Howard, CEO of ZoomSafer, a mobile phone safety software provider, outlined three important lessons the case can teach fleet managers. First, when accidents happen, plaintiffs will sue (and obviously judgments could get costly). In addition, policies cannot exist only on paper and they must be enforced.
Hoffman concludes:
This case emphasizes just how serious the risk is – and that all employers can be vicariously implicated if they fail to manage and monitor how employees are using mobile devices while driving. Employers who want to minimize liability as much as possible must institute risk management programs to actively or passively enforce cell phone use policies.
The risks of distracted driving have been well documented and with more and more states enacting some sort of ban on cell phone use while driving, either for talking, texting or both, cell phone policies are quickly becoming a necessity. And as this case shows, it’s not just about legal compliance or driver safety–it can also have a substantial financial impact on your company.
Great article. I have been round and round on the issue of cell phone usage for many companies, school district’s and other public organizations alike. Attacking just cell phone usage is only curing part of the problem. I have started to advise my clients to implement a distracted driving policy. This allows for a broader approach and can restrict the various activities that can result in accidents and/or death to others.
A drivers job is to drive safely. Talking, texting & tweeting are the “Terrible Three”. You just don’t do that while operating a 2,000 pound deadly weapon……..Too bad cellphones aren’t automatically disabled when inside of a moving vehicle…….
Just a thought……….
Wonderful article and wake-up call for all drivers, company or not.
PD.T.F.: There is software available to disable cell phone use and advise the caller, e-mail or text sender the driver is busy driving and will respond when able. There are suppliers which offer this technology for personal use and company use.
I’ve often thought there should be some sort of a device that disables a cell phone once a vehicle’s engine starts and, at the same time, disables the vehicle’s ignition system if the driver makes a phone call.
As a representative of a company providing in-vehicle solutions for commercial and business fleets, I’m pleased to hear that there’s finally some consciousness about banding phone use in the business environment. This highlights the need for the “right tool” for the job. For example, TomTom provides solutions to help improve the flow of communications between drivers and their back-office personnel with the indent to improve customer service levels and over-the-road efficiency. We also provide a number of driver safety feature such as “lock down” while driver where the device cannot be use while driving, text-to-speech so that dispatches can send instant messages to drivers and driver can only hear them announced, and special large navigation 5-6 inch screens with advance lane guidance both in audio and bright clear images.
Again, this situation highlights what we should be doing while driving. In the business environment, it’s about serving your customers and that needs to be the focus. Having products like TomTom Business Solution (www.tomtom.com/business) is part of the solution.
– Michael Geffroy (michael.geffroy@tomtom.com)
Has everyone lost their mind? Not one comment on how this judgment is completely insane, why not sue the cell phone company for not having a warning sticker on the phone or the car company for making cars or maybe the government for building roads. Their all as much to blame as the employer if you ask me. Or maybe we should be held responsible for our own actions, NO that sounds crazy.
I would agree with Andreas. This judgment is unreasonable. It is interesting to hear the support for banning cell phone use in a business environment and even the idea of rules focused on “distracted driving” which is actually closer to the real issue. If that is the case, then there should be state laws (or perhaps a national law) which prohibits ALL drivers from engaging in distracting activities (eating, drinking, putting on makeup, talking to others in the car, etc.). Logic would dictate that what is reasonable for driving a fleet car (as in this case) should be no different than driving one’s personal automobile. This will not happen of course, because this is not a case of logic, it’s a situation where lawyers were successful in convincing a jury to be sympathetic to one individual against a large corporation with significant resources (classic David vs. Goliath).
I agree with Andrea, It’s the individual that should be held accountable. Take their licence away not the vehicle and hit them in the pocket book. However, I do think it’s in the best interest of companies clearly defining the policies to drivers and should be doing more to prevent the stupiduty of texting and driving. As mentioned there are lots of software options but I went the low tech. I just bought a $15 cradle that sticks to a window (Rear drivers side) so I can’t reach it. Out of site and reach, out of mind. Now I don’t have to test my willpower every time I get in my car. I know trucks don’t have rear windows but I’m sure they can place it somewhere out of reach. BUT what it really comes down to is the drivers responsibility.