5 ms·

> When Peña downloaded the Bird app and agreed to its terms in August 2018, he unwittingly indemnified Bird against any lawsuits. Bird now claims that Peña owes

> When Peña downloaded the Bird app and agreed to its terms in August 2018, he unwittingly indemnified Bird against any lawsuits. Bird now claims that Peña owes the company $322,171, the amount it has spent so far defending Los Angeles against the lawsuit. Our legal system is such a fucking joke.

api 4y ago
- lacrosse_tannin 4y ago
  bird flips you!
danuker 4y ago
If you owned the vehicle outright, would the manufacturer be liable for an accident you had?
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Under similar circumstances? Probably, yes. They're the ones who ostensibly indemnified the city, something they had no obligation to do.
- datalopers 4y ago
  He didn’t sue Bird, he sued the city for not maintaining the sidewalks. Whether or not that case has any merit is debatable, but the mechanism under which the city held Bird liable and then in-turn Bird held him liable is utterly insane.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Oh! I had failed to read that Byrd would have to pay for the city's defense, and that Byrd's agreement prohibits suing the city.
- newsclues 4y ago
  Are manufacturers responsible for peoples use of firearms?
unsupp0rted 4y ago
Wouldn't / shouldn't a judge throw out a sweeping clause like this if challenged in court?
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Broad clauses aren't themselves problematic, but if the contract is take-it-or-leave-it (a contract of adhesion with no real negotiation), there's a different angle to approach it from. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_...
dymk 4y ago
If the guy was driving drunk on a scooter, he absolutely should be on the hook for damages.
- neon_electro 4y ago
  That needs to be proven with evidence. There isn't any proof.
atourgates 4y ago
This is the insane part of the situation, and what everybody should be outraged about. You can make a great argument that the rider wasn't following the rules, perhaps was impared, and that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for damages (in any case, they aren't, since part of the agreement between Bird and the city is that Bird has to cover damages). HOWEVER, it is extremely unfair for the terms and conditions of an app to say, "If you use this, you can't sue us, and if you sue us anyway, you have to pay for the cost of our defense against your lawsuit." That essentially circumvents the entire civil legal system in the United States. It's a shame that this has come to light in a case of such questionable liability. But don't let that cloud your perspective on this part of the case. Let's imagine a case where Bird was clearly at fault, and the rider was following all the rules. Should a company be able to indemnify itself against any liability as a condition of using its products? Certainly not, at least if you believe in the core principles of the American civil legal system.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Isn't circumvention of the legal system the entire point of Terms & Conditions? If both parties were fine with the law as it stood, no one would need to sign anything.
  - antifa 4y ago
    Thankfully, to the chagrin of fringe internet libertarians, the law rightfully ignores things like "code is law" and does not define consider "I agree to have no rights" to be something you can consent to consent to.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  How do you feel about FOSS, and the things that many FOSS licenses say about liability? Would you feel better about the Bird T&C, if they had 2 separate options: - 1.) The current "you can't sue us" deal. - 2.) An otherwise-similar "you CAN sue us" deal. But at a far higher price, since the insurance they'd need for that deal would not come cheap, and close to zero people would pick that option...

api 4y ago

lacrosse_tannin 4y ago
bird flips you!

danuker 4y ago

If you owned the vehicle outright, would the manufacturer be liable for an accident you had?

torstenvl 4y ago
Under similar circumstances? Probably, yes. They're the ones who ostensibly indemnified the city, something they had no obligation to do.
datalopers 4y ago
He didn’t sue Bird, he sued the city for not maintaining the sidewalks. Whether or not that case has any merit is debatable, but the mechanism under which the city held Bird liable and then in-turn Bird held him liable is utterly insane.
- danuker 4y ago
  Oh! I had failed to read that Byrd would have to pay for the city's defense, and that Byrd's agreement prohibits suing the city.
newsclues 4y ago
Are manufacturers responsible for peoples use of firearms?

unsupp0rted 4y ago

Wouldn't / shouldn't a judge throw out a sweeping clause like this if challenged in court?

torstenvl 4y ago
Broad clauses aren't themselves problematic, but if the contract is take-it-or-leave-it (a contract of adhesion with no real negotiation), there's a different angle to approach it from. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_of_adhesion) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_(contract_...

dymk 4y ago

If the guy was driving drunk on a scooter, he absolutely should be on the hook for damages.

neon_electro 4y ago
That needs to be proven with evidence. There isn't any proof.

atourgates 4y ago

This is the insane part of the situation, and what everybody should be outraged about. You can make a great argument that the rider wasn't following the rules, perhaps was impared, and that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for damages (in any case, they aren't, since part of the agreement between Bird and the city is that Bird has to cover damages). HOWEVER, it is extremely unfair for the terms and conditions of an app to say, "If you use this, you can't sue us, and if you sue us anyway, you have to pay for the cost of our defense against your lawsuit." That essentially circumvents the entire civil legal system in the United States. It's a shame that this has come to light in a case of such questionable liability. But don't let that cloud your perspective on this part of the case. Let's imagine a case where Bird was clearly at fault, and the rider was following all the rules. Should a company be able to indemnify itself against any liability as a condition of using its products? Certainly not, at least if you believe in the core principles of the American civil legal system.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Isn't circumvention of the legal system the entire point of Terms & Conditions? If both parties were fine with the law as it stood, no one would need to sign anything.
- antifa 4y ago
  Thankfully, to the chagrin of fringe internet libertarians, the law rightfully ignores things like "code is law" and does not define consider "I agree to have no rights" to be something you can consent to consent to.
bell-cot 4y ago
How do you feel about FOSS, and the things that many FOSS licenses say about liability? Would you feel better about the Bird T&C, if they had 2 separate options: - 1.) The current "you can't sue us" deal. - 2.) An otherwise-similar "you CAN sue us" deal. But at a far higher price, since the insurance they'd need for that deal would not come cheap, and close to zero people would pick that option...