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
    Dark Helmet (profile), 3 May 2010 @ 2:28pm

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

    "please defend your statement."

    Okay, but again, the statement is NOT that if someone infringes on your right you don't have that right. The statement is that if you are unable to unwilling to have your right enforced, then you don't have that right. It has nothing to do with right or wrong or morals. In my view, the men in your scenario are terrible people that deserve death. But that doesn't grant the woman any rights. Now, for the definition of the word "right":

    "an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature"

    So, in your scenario, there is no law or tradition to be concerned with, and nature certainly does not grant any creature the right to not be raped, as it happens in nature ALL THE TIME. So, while what happened to the woman was deplorable and morally unjust, by definition she did not have any rights violated.

    "("if one infringes on a right, does it exist?")"

    Again, NOT WHAT I SAID. I'm trying to drive the point home that I think the argument can be made for rights being meaningless without the willingness and ability to enforce them. This really isn't that hard, is it? It's why the 2nd amendment is so important, or at least it was supposed to be. We have to be able to have the weapons to fight our own government as the founding fathers suggested we should if they infringe on our rights. THAT'S why they put that amendment IN there to begin with!

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.