## Facts

- Linda and David Kubert were riding a motorcycle when a pickup truck driven by 18-year-old Kyle Best crossed the center line and struck them.
- Both plaintiffs suffered catastrophic injuries, including amputation of a leg.
- Best had been texting while driving and began responding to a text around the time he drifted over the center line.
- Best and his 17-year-old friend, Shannon Colonna, exchanged many text messages that day; Colonna sent approximately 180 texts in under 12 hours.
- Phone records indicated Best received a text from Colonna seconds before the collision.
- Best was cited for or pled guilty to texting while driving under New Jersey motor-vehicle law.
- Plaintiffs settled negligence claims against Best; the remaining dispute concerned whether Colonna, as the remote sender, could be liable to third parties injured in the crash.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who sends a text message to a driver from a remote location owes a duty of care to third parties injured when the driver is distracted by texting.
2. If such a duty exists, whether the evidence created a jury question that Colonna knew or had special reason to know Best would view her text while driving at the time of the accident.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for Colonna.
- The court recognized a limited potential duty for remote texters: a sender may be liable only if the sender knew or had special reason to know the recipient would view the text while driving and be distracted.
- Applying that rule, the court held plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that Colonna knew or had special reason to know Best was driving and would read the text when she sent it.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence duty is shaped by foreseeability and policy; the driver remains primarily responsible for obeying traffic laws and avoiding distraction.
- A remote texter can owe a duty to users of the roadway only when the texter knows, or has special reason to know, that the recipient will view the text while driving.
- Evidence of frequent texting alone is insufficient; liability requires proof tied to the time of the communication showing knowledge (or a specific basis to infer knowledge) that the recipient was driving and likely to read the message immediately.
- Absent such proof, a remote texter is not liable for injuries caused by the driver’s distracted driving as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the remote texter, while announcing that civil liability may exist in future cases only where the sender knew or had special reason to know the recipient would read the text while driving and thereby create a road hazard.


Kubert v. Best, 432 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 2013)