| ▲ | alex43578 10 hours ago |
| Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors. The driver as an individual stopped the car and forced them out, because they were puking in his private vehicle. It wasn't the Uber app saying stop here and get out/force them out, to my knowledge. Yup. Instances like this, the Clancy trial, and others really highlight the flaws in our jury system when considering the complexities of the modern world/legal system. |
|
| ▲ | kashunstva 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Uber should present itself differently, then, to users and should clearly warn them that they may be subject to capricious and potentially negligent actions by those with whom it contracts to drive. I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner. |
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When you hail a regular taxi from Mike's Yellow Taxi, do you think you are subject to the "capricious and potentially negligent actions" of that driver, without being given a waiver to sign? Do you assume they have any additional training beyond a "for hire" license, and do you expect that Mike's Yellow Taxi has trained them to act in a safe manner? | |
| ▲ | stevenhuang 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner. Are you for real? |
|
|
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As the article noted, this was not a jury trial, this was decided by an arbitration judge. |
| |
| ▲ | camkego 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This seems like a very surprising point of what happened here, sure, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a $40 million award by a jury, but that’s kind of unusual from an arbitration judge isn’t it? The whole reason companies mandate arbitration in their EULAs (or equivalent) is so the can avoid 40 million judgments. | |
| ▲ | alex43578 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Arbitrators going to arbitrate then. There's a reason why you want to settle before jury verdicts and opt of arbitration whenever possible. | | |
| ▲ | f30e3dfed1c9 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's Uber forcing the matter into arbitration: "By agreeing to these Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim and/or lawsuit that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in binding arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement..." |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors I don't think that should really matter when you're engaging in activities that are "on duty" The driver was acting as a representative of Uber. They were on a job for Uber. |
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's a huge legal distinction there, and it affects taxes, liability, etc. It's distinct from the lay understanding of "working for Uber". If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? If Doordash has a policy encouraging running red lights, sure; but if it's just because they as an individual made a bad decision, Doordash shouldn't be liable. The legal system should assign blame to the guilty, not encourage hunting for a tenuous connection to whoever has the deepest pockets. | | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | gamblor956 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? Yes. This is settled law dude. It's a form of vicarious liability and had been around for a very long time. | | |
| ▲ | alex43578 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except that settled law generally doesn't apply to independent contractors, absent specific exceptions, which I can't tell apply from this poorly written news article. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | gamblor956 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The distinction is primarily for tax purposes. Companies are responsible for the actions of independent contractors working for the company. This has been the law for...decades... Why are you trying so hard to defend a multibillion dollar corporation? |
| |
| ▲ | alex43578 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Except the distinction also applies in tort law, which you apparently missed. I'm not arguing in defense of Uber, but to point out how ridiculous this legal jackpot is in the face of established law. Modern society seems to have thrown out any semblance of justice, fairness, and consistency in favor of who's got the best sob story or has the right skin color/ethnic group/income level/ political connections for that particular venue. | | |
|
