Key Takeaway
Court rules texting someone who kills in car accident doesn't create liability. Remote senders lack control over drivers unlike passengers in vehicle.
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Texting a Driver Who Causes a Fatal Accident: Is the Sender Liable Under New York Law?
Distracted driving is a leading cause of car accidents in New York. But when a text message contributes to a fatal crash, does the person who sent that text share legal liability? The Fourth Department addressed this novel question of duty in Vega v Crane.
Key Takeaway
New York courts hold that a remote text sender owes no legal duty to potential accident victims because the sender cannot control whether a driver reads the text while operating a vehicle — the driver alone bears that responsibility.
The Case: Vega v Crane
Vega v Crane, 2018 NY Slip Op 03262 (4th Dept, 2018)
The Distinction Between Passengers and Remote Text Senders
“There is, however, a significant distinction between the distracting passenger and the remote sender of text messages. Unlike the passenger, the remote sender is not present in the vehicle and thus “lacks the first-hand knowledge of the circumstances attendant to the driver’s operation of the vehicle that a passenger possesses and has even less ability to control the actions of the driver” (Kubert v Best, 432 NJ Super 495, 521, 75 A3d 1214, 1230 ).”
The court emphasized that the driver has complete control over whether to allow a text message to create a distraction:
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
- The driver cannot prevent a passenger from creating a distraction by calling out unexpectedly
- The driver can control whether to read a text message at an imprudent moment
- The remote sender is powerless to compel the driver to read the text
- The sender has no duty to prevent the driver from reading it
The Slippery Slope Problem
“If a person were to be held liable for communicating a text message to another person whom he or she knows or reasonably should know is operating a vehicle, such a holding could logically be expanded to encompass all manner of heretofore innocuous activities. A billboard, a sign outside a church, or a child’s lemonade stand could all become a potential source of liability in a negligence action. Each of the foregoing examples is a communication directed specifically at passing motorists and intended to divert their attention from the highway.”
The Court’s Holding: No Duty Owed
“We conclude that defendant owed no duty to plaintiff to refrain from the conduct alleged, and therefore that she cannot be held liable for such conduct. Accordingly, we conclude that the order should be affirmed.”
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis
I think this is a really interesting issue. What if you give a gun to someone who you know will shoot it? Are you liable for negligent entrustment? If you serve alcohol to a minor and they get into an accident, you’re liable. Yes, there is no statute or common law principle here, and the negligent entrustment analogy is a bit outside the bounds of this discussion. But I do not see this debate ending here in 4th Department precedent.
Broader Implications for Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases
This decision raises important questions about the evolving nature of duty in the age of smartphones. While the court declined to impose liability on text senders, the legal landscape around distracted driving continues to develop. For now, personal injury plaintiffs must focus their claims on the driver who chose to read a text while behind the wheel — not on the person who sent it.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
Major medical carrier taken to the mat for unscrupulous conduct
Get expert legal analysis on Major medical carrier taken to the mat for unscrupulous conduct from Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum | Personal Injury Lawyers
Mar 24, 2012
The personal vehicle v. the loaner vehicle: who pays?
Understanding loaner vehicle insurance coverage in NY. Expert legal analysis of who pays for injuries. Call 516-750-0595 for free consultation.
Jun 25, 2023
Evidence: The MRI report
Analysis of MRI evidence admissibility in New York no-fault cases, examining Madia v Garcia ruling and challenges with NY's evidentiary system for personal injury practitioners.
Oct 16, 2021
Serious injury: PL 10.00(10) v. Ins Law 5102(d)
Comparison of 'serious injury' definitions between New York Penal Law 10.00(10) and Insurance Law 5102(d) in People v Garland, examining evidentiary standards.
Dec 1, 2018Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
Can you be sued for texting someone who causes a car accident in New York?
No. The Fourth Department ruled in Vega v Crane that a remote text sender owes no duty to the recipient's potential accident victims because the sender cannot control whether the driver reads the text while operating a vehicle.
What is the difference between a distracting passenger and a text sender under NY law?
Unlike a passenger who is physically present and can create unavoidable distractions, a remote text sender has no first-hand knowledge of the driver's circumstances and no ability to compel the driver to read the text at an imprudent moment.
Could texting liability expand to other forms of communication in New York?
The court warned that imposing liability on text senders could logically expand to billboards, church signs, and lemonade stands — any communication directed at passing motorists — making such a holding impractical and overbroad.
How does negligent entrustment differ from texting liability in New York?
Negligent entrustment involves giving someone control of a dangerous instrument knowing they are likely to cause harm. Texting differs because the sender has no control over when or whether the driver reads the message while operating a vehicle.
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a no-fault matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
