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 o

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.