That article says that the person sending the text to the driver who crashed was NOT held responsible, because she was not aware that he was driving at the time.

I think the point is, if you text someone when you know they are driving, especially when it can be established that you had a reasonable expectation this would cause them to read or respond to your text while driving, its a reckless and dangerous thing to do so you should be held liable, the same as if you deliberately distracted a driver and caused an accident by any other means.

Nothing says the reciever HAS to read it.

I said, "when it can be established that you had a reasonable expectation this would cause them to read or respond to your text while driving".

In legal matters, particularly where criminal charges are being considered, the intention of the parties is actually quite relevant.

Consider it like this; if a person tells you how they'd like to kill someone, and you hand them a loaded gun, which they later use to kill or injure someone... that makes you, in part at least, liable for their actions... you werent the one who pulled the trigger, you may not have wanted it or encouraged it, but you were reckless as to the consequences of your actions; you had to have known what happened was a possible outcome, and your certainty as to the probability of its occurrence ought to have weighed in the severity of the potential outcome. The shooter's actions might make them guilty of murder, but yours would make you guilty of manslaughter, due to reckless endangerment of life.

You might not agree with this reasoning... in fact I know a lot of Americans who think this way, that sole blame always rests on the individual... however, thats not how the law works. The law isnt about finding a single scapegoat for a crime, its about apportioning responsibility to all contributors to a criminal act, and in doing so to discourage people from recklessly or negligently harming others, encouraging them to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions and omissions instead of 'passing the buck', ie. shifting the blame.

Texting while driving is dangerous, sure but it's not the sender's fault that the recipient chose to read it while driving. That's the fault of the recipient. We're not talking about murder here, this is blatant ignorance by the judge. It's like blaming the passengers for the cause of an airplane crash. Speaking of criminals, they now have an excuse thanks to this where they can say "Oh but he sent me a hateful text message. I had to kill him." This would make some of the dumbest court cases ever. Would they actually throw you in prison for "endangerment" when you had no control over what the recipient does? If you get a text from your girlfriend and you're driving, YOU are to blame for any accident you get into because your eyes are supposed to be on the road. The sender will not have any idea where you are, even if they tell you because you can't see what they're doing.

Like I said, its a matter of whether the sender KNOWS the receiver is driving at the time, and whether they KNOW the person will read and/or respond to the message while driving.

If you knowingly contribute to a situation that results in criminal harm, you have to accept responsibility for your contribution. It wont make you liable to the same extent as the person behind the wheel, but you cant say you didnt contribute to the situation at all if you acted KNOWING full well what the consequences of your actions might be.