Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant

from the it's-the-tool dept

Michael Scott points us to the news of a new lawsuit that hopefully doesn't get very far, but which does highlight the frequency with which third parties are sued these days, not because they have any actual liability, but because they have money. In this case, a woman is suing a GPS vehicle tracking service, Foxtrax Vehicle Tracking, because her domestic partner used the service to figure out where she was and to attack her. It sounds as though the guy put the tracking device on the woman's car in order to stalk her. It's difficult to think that anyone could find the company liable here for the actions of the guy. I'm sure it's upsetting that the guy was able to track her, and she has every right to press all sorts of charges against the guy. But the GPS tracking company was merely the technology provider.

However, this is yet another example of what I've called "Steve Dallas lawsuits," after a Bloom County cartoon strip, I remembered from decades ago, where the character Steve Dallas (a lawyer, who gets beaten up by Sean Penn when he tried to take his photograph -- some things never change), explains why after going through all the options on who to sue, he chooses to sue the camera manufacturer, the made-up Nikolta, because it's "a major corporation with gobs of liquid cash...."

Filed Under: domestic abuse, gps, liability, third party liability
Companies: foxtrax vehicle tracking

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    lux (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 2:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...

    "The only reason the rights exist is because of the collective agreement that they did...Without the collective agreement to enforce them, I'm not sure those rights exist as a matter of principle."

    Obviously I'm not making my point clear enough for you.

    Let's say there's a deserted island, with no government or any type of law and order. Let's now say a shipwreck strands four men and one woman, while all the other shipmates were not as fortunate.

    Now let's say four of the men decide they want to take advantage of the woman in the worst way possible.

    Are you claiming that because the majority of the men (all of them) don't agree/enforce the right NOT to rape the woman, she does not have the inalienable right NOT to be raped? In this particular scenario, please defend your statement. Since what I described is not that unrealistic (i.e. Somalia), this is very a practical example.

    Every living thing is born with inherent rights, they are not chosen at a convention by a select few, they are granted at birth. Whether your socioeconomic worldview grants these liberties is irrelevant.

    Moreover, just given our rhetoric on the topic ("if one infringes on a right, does it exist?") - the mere fact that we are claiming a right has been infringed, denotes that it in fact exists.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.