The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. [Wikipedia]
In my view, the driver is still liable (and that mustn't ever change) but Snapchat should have to prove to a judge that they shouldn't also be found liable.
Comments
Doesn’t that just describe the majority of Snapchat filters?
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. [Wikipedia]
In my view, the driver is still liable (and that mustn't ever change) but Snapchat should have to prove to a judge that they shouldn't also be found liable.
A filter that makes you look like a dog does not encourage dangerous behavior the way a speedometer overlay does.