I’m not even sure why the issue is around arbitration. I just pulled up there TOS[0], and in section 8 is has verbiage that frees them from any and all liability. IANAL, but this seems like pretty standard stuff I’d expect from any car service, where they aren’t responsible for injury or death.
> UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR … PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH … RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE
Arbitration or in a court, where is their case when this is in the TOS?
TOSs aren't nearly as binding as you would think, particularly if a reasonable person would click "agree" yet not at least roughly understand the terms. A general
"You release the company from even negligent liability" is just sovereign-citizen-like wishful thinking.
This is part of why they include this classic:
> If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced to the fullest extent under law.
> Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car
couple says:
>the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats
uber's argument:
> both that Georgia McGinty could not escape the agreement by claiming it was actually her daughter who agreed to updated terms, and that Georgia McGinty’s account had previously agreed to terms which also included an arbitration clause
court opinion:
> arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms
I feel like this article is missing context. Insurance follows the car and Uber has at least $1M in insurance that covers riders. In the US people file an insurance claim after car crashes and the insurance pays damages. You'd never get compensation directly from the driver or the company. What was the result of the insurance claim and why are they suing Uber now (1 year after the accident)?
If you have damages over what the insurance covers the insured is still liable.
I think you actually always sue directly its just the insurance company pays for the lawyers and settlement. The lawsuit will be Bob Smith vs Allen Jefferson not Bob Smith vs Progressive Insurance.
What I mean is that car crash insurance claims almost never go to court. Suing for more than the $1M coverage could be one reason, but the article doesn't say why.
Anyway judges almost always honor arbitration clauses because it gets the case out of court. If anyone could get out of arbitration by saying "my daughter signed the agreement, not me" that would lead to a lot more cases getting tried in court
It doesn’t matter if someone else is legally required to cover the costs you incur in an accident.
you are liable for the costs incurred. You sue the other entity to get the money to pay those bills, if they cannot afford it you still have to pay those bills.
Yet another way healthcare in the US bankrupts people when they’re not at fault.
I’m not even sure why the issue is around arbitration. I just pulled up there TOS[0], and in section 8 is has verbiage that frees them from any and all liability. IANAL, but this seems like pretty standard stuff I’d expect from any car service, where they aren’t responsible for injury or death.
> UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR … PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH … RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE
Arbitration or in a court, where is their case when this is in the TOS?
[0] https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-o...
TOSs aren't nearly as binding as you would think, particularly if a reasonable person would click "agree" yet not at least roughly understand the terms. A general "You release the company from even negligent liability" is just sovereign-citizen-like wishful thinking. This is part of why they include this classic:
> If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced to the fullest extent under law.
> Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car
couple says:
>the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats
uber's argument:
> both that Georgia McGinty could not escape the agreement by claiming it was actually her daughter who agreed to updated terms, and that Georgia McGinty’s account had previously agreed to terms which also included an arbitration clause
court opinion:
> arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms
I feel like this article is missing context. Insurance follows the car and Uber has at least $1M in insurance that covers riders. In the US people file an insurance claim after car crashes and the insurance pays damages. You'd never get compensation directly from the driver or the company. What was the result of the insurance claim and why are they suing Uber now (1 year after the accident)?
If you have damages over what the insurance covers the insured is still liable.
I think you actually always sue directly its just the insurance company pays for the lawyers and settlement. The lawsuit will be Bob Smith vs Allen Jefferson not Bob Smith vs Progressive Insurance.
What I mean is that car crash insurance claims almost never go to court. Suing for more than the $1M coverage could be one reason, but the article doesn't say why.
Anyway judges almost always honor arbitration clauses because it gets the case out of court. If anyone could get out of arbitration by saying "my daughter signed the agreement, not me" that would lead to a lot more cases getting tried in court
Medical bills can easily exceed a million, especially if multiple people are involved.
It doesn’t matter if someone else is legally required to cover the costs you incur in an accident.
you are liable for the costs incurred. You sue the other entity to get the money to pay those bills, if they cannot afford it you still have to pay those bills.
Yet another way healthcare in the US bankrupts people when they’re not at fault.
Next, on Letho's Law.. Uber goes full Disney.
Again?
[dupe]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657