2 ms·

As mentioned by others, I think it depends strongly on what the driver's training was. Between the overblown hype about the capabilities of self-driving cars, t

As mentioned by others, I think it depends strongly on what the driver's training was. Between the overblown hype about the capabilities of self-driving cars, the state government's abdication of its regulation power, and the intentional disabling of existing safety devices on the vehicle (it's unclear if this change or the risks of the change were communicated to the driver), I would be honestly surprised if the driver believed it was actually that dangerous to allow her attention to drift. It's one thing to charge negligent homicide with a typical car. But the near-fraudulent claims of self-driving car hucksters at the time had a lot of people believing these vehicles were already far more capable than they will be for decades to come. And it's inevitable that the Koolaid drinking in this particular program within Uber was at its strongest. So I doubt the safety drivers were adequately informed of the actual capabilities of the cars or the risks involved.

cyrux004 6y ago
Its literally in the name of the job title "Car safety driver"
tmsh 6y ago
I agree. This is where torts get fun in first-year law school. If Uber's training wasn't perfectly clear about the importance of the job of monitoring outside the vehicle, then part of the liability shifts to them. Consider two training courses: * instructors who are gung-ho on automation being "nearly there" and encouraging people to relax in the car and let the software do its work! * instructors who are constantly impressing upon students that they need to be vigilant. One can see how one party is 90% liable. And the other is 10% liable, etc. The interesting part of this case comes down to the training. In that if it was lacking, it then makes it very clear to future companies that their training needs to be more rigorous.
- Cd00d 6y ago
  Thank you for this comment and the insight. I have a follow up question: even after training, is there a liability burden to ensure the training is followed? I know no hiring process is perfect, so you're always going to end up with the occasional employee that disregards safety training. Knowing that, is there a burden on Uber to actively monitor the driver's attention and communicate to the driver when it is not sufficient? Even on an audit basis, but more ideally constant?
  - tmsh 6y ago
    Those are great questions. I think it comes down to negligence and whether the employer makes a good faith attempt training and monitoring throughout the process. Sometimes that's difficult in new fields and then it seems like the burden falls less on the employee (the company is taking on this risk, given the chance for new rewards).
xadhominemx 6y ago
She was not brand new on the job, right? She knew how often intervention was required and chose to watch TV instead.

cyrux004 6y ago

Its literally in the name of the job title "Car safety driver"

tmsh 6y ago

I agree. This is where torts get fun in first-year law school. If Uber's training wasn't perfectly clear about the importance of the job of monitoring outside the vehicle, then part of the liability shifts to them. Consider two training courses: * instructors who are gung-ho on automation being "nearly there" and encouraging people to relax in the car and let the software do its work! * instructors who are constantly impressing upon students that they need to be vigilant. One can see how one party is 90% liable. And the other is 10% liable, etc. The interesting part of this case comes down to the training. In that if it was lacking, it then makes it very clear to future companies that their training needs to be more rigorous.

Cd00d 6y ago
Thank you for this comment and the insight. I have a follow up question: even after training, is there a liability burden to ensure the training is followed? I know no hiring process is perfect, so you're always going to end up with the occasional employee that disregards safety training. Knowing that, is there a burden on Uber to actively monitor the driver's attention and communicate to the driver when it is not sufficient? Even on an audit basis, but more ideally constant?
- tmsh 6y ago
  Those are great questions. I think it comes down to negligence and whether the employer makes a good faith attempt training and monitoring throughout the process. Sometimes that's difficult in new fields and then it seems like the burden falls less on the employee (the company is taking on this risk, given the chance for new rewards).

xadhominemx 6y ago

She was not brand new on the job, right? She knew how often intervention was required and chose to watch TV instead.