Remix.run Logo
bonsai_spool 14 hours ago

> No idea how you can hold a company liable for the crimes committed by employees

This is quite standard actually, and there's a long common law tradition around this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior).

The question here was whether Uber could claim the drivers were not, in fact, employees.

(edit: A commenter correctly explains that no employee relationship is necessarily required; I should have stated that this was one part of Uber's defense, in addition to the driver having agreed not to assault riders and having undergone a safety screening)

klodolph 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Respondeat superior and vicarious liability don’t specifically require an employer-employee relationship.

bonsai_spool 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, agreed - I should have stated that this was one part of Uber's defense, in addition to the driver having agreed not to assault riders and having undergone a safety screening.

carlosjobim 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think Uber instructed their drivers to rape people?

According to the article you linked to, a similar case was already tried in 1838, when a boy fell off a wagon, and the master was not guilty of the behaviour of the wagon driver.

Edman274 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If Uber had an internal policy of only ever hiring convicted rapists, didn't tell anyone using the app this, didn't warn about unsafe rides, didn't record ride information, and (crucially) also didn't tell their employees to do anything other than to be decent, good, hardworking drivers -- what do you believe their liability should be in this case? Nothing? I'm trying to "steelman" the implications of your point of view but I'm struggling here. When does liability kick in for you - is it only if they enshrine it as policy to do the criminal act?

carlosjobim 14 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think there's anything very complicated here. We don't need to make up unreal scenarios.

For example a company can instruct a truck driver what time he needs to have the goods delivered, then the company is also to blame if he has an accident because the schedule was unfeasible while following safe driving practices.

Or a company which is dumping harmful chemicals into the environment.

A cab driver raping a passenger is unfortunately not an isolated happening, it's not particular to Uber.

bonsai_spool 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> According to the article you linked to

The article goes on to explain that the 1838 view has been adjusted over time, and the linked source discusses this in better detail.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refe...

buellerbueller 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Do you think Uber instructed their drivers to rape people?

Is that the legal standard here? No.

carlosjobim 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that's the legal standard. You should read the linked article. A company is only responsible for crimes or injuries their employees commit, if these are part of what they've been instructed to do by the company.

How can you even think another way? Only the rapist is guilty of rape. Any other thinking is apologizing for heinous crimes.

ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Only the rapist is guilty of rape.

Sure. If Uber was convicted of the crime of rape here, that'd be weird.

They were found civilly liable. Because of things like this:

> Over three weeks, jurors weighed the harrowing personal account of Ms. Dean as well as testimony from Uber executives and thousands of pages of internal company documents, including some showing that Uber had flagged her ride as a higher risk for a serious safety incident moments before she was picked up. Uber never warned her, with an executive testifying that it would have been “impractical” to do so.

carlosjobim 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you know what that serious safety incident was? I don't. I don't find support in the article of any connection. It could have been reckless driving, or it could have been sexual in nature. What it was makes a lot of difference.

ceejayoz 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It may surprise you, but a four week jury trial covers a few more bases than a short article can fully detail. That said, this definitely has an answer:

https://www.courthousenews.com/in-sexual-assault-trial-uber-...

> When matching drivers with riders, Uber uses an AI-powered safety feature called the safety ride assistant dispatch, or SRAD. SRAD gives potential driver-rider matches a score from 0 to 1 based on potential for sexual assault and aims to make matches with the lowest risk.

tpmoney 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The article also says that Uber sets various thresholds around this already and that their system flagged it at a score that was "higher than the late night average". What it doesn't tell us is what the threshold is/was for Pheonix, or how that threshold compares to other cities, or even how much higher the score was over the "average". Maybe their threshold for canceling a ride is 0.85, and the late night average is 0.8 in this system. So 0.81 puts the driver over the late night average as per the article and under the threshold for canceling the ride.

Your email provider has systems for detecting spam and removing it from your email. If an email comes into their system and falls under the threshold for being declared spam, but is over the average spam rating for emails in your account, have they done something wrong by allowing it through if it's spam? What if it wasn't spam and they removed it?

These sorts of headlines that espouse a "they knew something and so therefore they are liable" viewpoint seem to me to be more likely to result in companies not building safety measurement systems, or at a minimum not building proactive systems, so that they can avoid getting dragged and blamed for an assault because they chose thresholds that didn't prevent the assault. And not all measurement systems are granular enough or reliable enough to be exposed to end users. Imagine if they built a system that determined that if your driver was from a low income part of town and the passenger lived in a high income part of down the chance of an assault was "higher than the late night average". How long would it be before we saw a different lawsuit alleging that Uber discriminated against minority drivers by telling affluent white passengers that their low income minority drivers were "more likely than average" to assault them? I would hope that this verdict was reached on stronger reasoning than "they had an automated number and didn't say anything" but if it did, none of the articles so far have said what that reasoning was.

bonsai_spool 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> system flagged it at a score that was "higher than the late night average"

Being charitable to the quality of Uber's legal team, I feel they could easily and compellingly have offered this defense.

It's telling that other documentary evidence highlighted that Uber decided sharing its reservations/acting on its system would be detrimental to growth.

surgical_fire 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> A company is only responsible for crimes or injuries their employees commit, if these are part of what they've been instructed to do by the company.

Are you trying to imply that the driver was not instructed by Uber to pick the woman who was raped?

> How can you even think another way? Only the rapist is guilty of rape. Any other thinking is apologizing for heinous crimes.

The company is responsible for sending a rapist to pick up the woman that was raped.

cindyllm 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[dead]

carlosjobim 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

ceejayoz 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No one is defending the rapist.

The rape was a crime.

Uber has civil liability for contributing to its occurring.

buellerbueller 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That Uber is liable does not imply that the driver is not also liable.