5 ms·

Intent matters. The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. Driving while watching a video certainly quali

Intent matters. The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Intent matters. Only to a crime whose required mental state is intent, which rules out crimes of negligent or recklessness (or strict liability, for that matter.) > The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. “A motorist can be convicted of negligent homicide for causing the death of another person while driving in a criminally negligent manner. A person acts with criminal negligence by unknowingly doing or failing to do something that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to others. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances.” https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-homicide-and-manslaughter-laws-and-penaltie https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-hom... I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. > Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”.
- rhino369 6y ago
  I should have said "mens rea," but it's a legal term that roughly translates to intent. >I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. Agreed, unless (again 100% hypothetically) Uber misled the driver about the capabilities. Even then it would still require that a reasonable person would believe a (hypothetical) incorrect statement about the car's capability. >No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. Not sure respondeat superior applies to criminal law. In either case, I think operating a fleet while (again 1000% hypothetically) misleading the drivers would be itself the act of criminal negligence. So I don't think you'd even need to resort to master/agent liability. >But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”. Not my area of expertise and I haven't looked at any case law on this point, but I think a believable statements made by Uber would be considered as the circumstances wrt "standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances." If a reasonable person would believe it was safe to watch the video while driving, it wouldn't qualify as criminal negligence.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
The only reason why motor vehicles require licensed operation is because of their extraordinary capacity to kill people. That is why it is regarded as a privilege and not a right. The reason why Uber had a human monitor, one required to have a valid motor vehicle license, is because of the potential lethal outcomes. You learn all of this when preparing to test for a license. It doesn't stop being one's responsibility to be a vigilant driver because it's convenient to do something else. Even considering the general stupidity levels of American drivers, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
> if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. What Uber (hypothetically might have) said is completely irrelevant; she was the driver, she is responsible.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Intent matters. Only to a crime whose required mental state is intent, which rules out crimes of negligent or recklessness (or strict liability, for that matter.) > The state has to provide criminal negligence, which in most states requires very risky behavior. “A motorist can be convicted of negligent homicide for causing the death of another person while driving in a criminally negligent manner. A person acts with criminal negligence by unknowingly doing or failing to do something that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk to others. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances.” https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-homicide-and-manslaughter-laws-and-penaltie https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/arizonas-vehicular-hom... I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. > Driving while watching a video certainly qualifies normally, but purely hypothetically, if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”.

rhino369 6y ago
I should have said "mens rea," but it's a legal term that roughly translates to intent. >I don't think that that's a hard fit for the publicly-reported facts of this case. Agreed, unless (again 100% hypothetically) Uber misled the driver about the capabilities. Even then it would still require that a reasonable person would believe a (hypothetical) incorrect statement about the car's capability. >No, if “Uber” said that there is an even greater case than there already is under simple respondeat superior for the actions of the driver alone as agent of the firm for Uber to be charged with negligent homicide, manslaughter, or even 2nd degree murder. Not sure respondeat superior applies to criminal law. In either case, I think operating a fleet while (again 1000% hypothetically) misleading the drivers would be itself the act of criminal negligence. So I don't think you'd even need to resort to master/agent liability. >But I don't think any representation by Uber could reduce the standard of care owed by a safety driver to members of the public to something below “not watching a video on the phone while supervising the safety of the operation of a self-driving vehicle”. Not my area of expertise and I haven't looked at any case law on this point, but I think a believable statements made by Uber would be considered as the circumstances wrt "standard of care that a reasonable person would use in like circumstances." If a reasonable person would believe it was safe to watch the video while driving, it wouldn't qualify as criminal negligence.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

The only reason why motor vehicles require licensed operation is because of their extraordinary capacity to kill people. That is why it is regarded as a privilege and not a right. The reason why Uber had a human monitor, one required to have a valid motor vehicle license, is because of the potential lethal outcomes. You learn all of this when preparing to test for a license. It doesn't stop being one's responsibility to be a vigilant driver because it's convenient to do something else. Even considering the general stupidity levels of American drivers, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

> if Uber had internally said it was totally safe to drive distracted, then maybe she has a defense. What Uber (hypothetically might have) said is completely irrelevant; she was the driver, she is responsible.