IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014 - 68

recording of events before and after
actual crashes could objectively
establish a link.
A seminal study [9] was carried out using 241 drivers and 100
cars over 13 months. Drivers were
given no special instructions as they
went about their daily lives. Their
cars were instrumented with five incabin and external cameras as well
as GPS receivers. This study looked
at all driver inattention behaviors and
found that dialing a handheld device
increased the risk of crash or nearcrash by 2.8 times. The same risk
increased by 1.3 times when the driver
was talking or listening to a hand-

are needed to address some research
issues, particularly in epidemiological research [3], [7]. At the same
time, evidence to date has led to an
increase in regulation. At the state
level, although no state prohibits
cell phone use by all drivers, 44
states prohibit text messaging by
all drivers, and 13 states prohibit
hand-held cell phone use by all
drivers [14]. At the federal level,
the U.S. National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), in December
2011, recommended a nationwide
ban of the use of portable electronic
devices, including cell phones,
while driving [17]. However, the

Exxon Mobil has forbidden its
employees from using cell phones
while driving, and so has AllState.
held device (not statistically significant). Other risky behaviors included
reaching for a moving object (9
times), looking at an external object
(3.7 times), reading (3.4 times), and
applying makeup (3 times).
Using a similar methodology, a
follow-up study [10] of both experienced and novice drivers found
that, for novice drivers, activities
that significantly increased the risk
of crash, or near-crash, include
dialing (8.3 times), reaching for
a handheld device (7.1 times) or
another object (8.0 times), texting
(3.9 times), looking at a roadside
object (3.9 times), and eating (3.0
times). For experienced drivers,
dialing a cell phone increased the
same risk by 2.5 times, however
other activities did not produce statistically significant risk.

Government Policies
The literature, represented in Table
I, suggests that cell phone use while
driving contributes to increased
driving risk [12]. A different
approach, based on phenomenology, has reached similar conclusions [25]. However, more studies
68

U.S. Secretary of Transportation
did not support the proposal [30].

Organizations'
Risk Management
From an organization's standpoint,
even if an employee follows the law
(e.g., by using a hands-free device
to discuss business on a cell phone
while driving), there is no guaranteed immunity from liability in the
case of an accident. Indeed, if the
accident resulted in litigation, it is
likely that the plaintiff will argue,
quite convincingly, in light of the
studies noted above, that the cell
phone usage was, at least in part, a
contributing factor to the accident.
Under the doctrine of vicarious
responsibility, employers can be
held liable for negligent acts committed by employees on the job,
and this is particularly true for injuries that are caused by an employee
discussing an organization's business on a cell phone while driving.
Therefore, an organization is left
on its own to minimize the risk arising from cell phone use.
A recent case on the subject
of an employer's liability for an

employee's use of a cell phone while
driving arose in Louisiana [24]. The
defendant-employer's employee was
allegedly distracted by a cell phone,
causing him to collide with another
vehicle resulting in the death of the
plaintiffs' husband and father. The
federal district court for Louisiana,
in a per curiam but unpublished
decision, cited the law on the subject of an employer's liability for
the actions of an employee and
noted, "...employers are responsible for the damage occasioned
by their employees, in the exercise
of the functions in which they are
employed (citations omitted).1 For
an employer to be held vicariously
liable for the irresponsible actions
of its employee, the employee must
have been acting within the course
and scope of his employment (citations omitted). The determinative
question, when assessing vicarious
liability, is whether the employee's
conduct was so closely connected
in time, place, and causation to his
employment duties as to be regarded
as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as
compared with conduct motivated
by purely personal considerations
entirely extraneous to the employer's interest (citation omitted) [24].
Although the court in this case
held that the employer was not
vicariously liable for the actions of
the employee, the court confirmed
that if an employer wishes to minimize the risk of being liable for an
injury arising out of an employee's
cell phone use while driving, the
employer must not only forbid
such activity, but must also actively
enforce the prohibition.
For an organization, the liability
issue is arguably the most significant. However, there is an additional
concern. An employee who is
involved in an accident while on a
1

Many times the court's opinion will refer to other
cases. When quoting from a court case, "citation
omitted" shows where there was a case citation
that the court had in its opinion. This is common
usage in law review articles.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

WINTER 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Winter 2014