4 ms·

The point is that Bird is using an arbitration agreement between them and an end user to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agr

by hnov 5y ago

The point is that Bird is using an arbitration agreement between them and an end user to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agreement with the city. This has _0_ to do with whether the gentleman brought it on himself.

adolph 5y ago
> to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agreement with the city I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The city wants money from Bird to pay for defending the gentleman's lawsuit against the city. Bird wants money from the gentleman since the lawsuit has to do with his scooter rental. The gentleman wants out of his rental agreement so he isn't being billed for the lawsuit he brought against the city? Even outside of being drunk and/or high and/or over the device weight limit and/or wearing a prohibited backpack and/or operating the device where it is not allowed, it sounds like he wants for everyone else in the city to compensate him for his misfortune? If he didn't get the sandwich shop job could he sue the city over that?
- setr 5y ago
  As I understand it, the problem is the defense strategy, not the particular case at hand. They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance. That in this case they shouldn’t be at fault is not the issue; if the case was more blatantly the opposite (the user was clearly not at any fault), bird would still be making the same argument
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance. That's not true; California law has limits on indemnity agreements, most notably that they don't apply to wilfull misconduct (and, in some domains, also not to harms due to the sole negligence of the indemnified party, but it's not clear to me that any of those apply here.) So there are clearly circumstances to which the chain indemnity here would not apply, if either the city or Bird had willful wrongdoing. The specific circumstances Peña alleges in this case don't meet that description, though.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The point is that Bird is using an arbitration agreement between them and an end user to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agreement with the city. No, they aren't; they are ponying up and coming after Peña to pay them back. That's kind of how indemnity agreements, in general, work. The point is that Peña is suing the city and, if the various indemnity agreements all hold up, also paying for the city’s defense against his lawsuit and paying any damages that the city is found liable for in that suit. Which means that, if the indemnity agreement holds up, the net result will be Peña paying all the legal bills and court costs and receiving nothing, irrespective of the outcome of the main lawsuit.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by hnov 5y ago

adolph 5y ago

> to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agreement with the city I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The city wants money from Bird to pay for defending the gentleman's lawsuit against the city. Bird wants money from the gentleman since the lawsuit has to do with his scooter rental. The gentleman wants out of his rental agreement so he isn't being billed for the lawsuit he brought against the city? Even outside of being drunk and/or high and/or over the device weight limit and/or wearing a prohibited backpack and/or operating the device where it is not allowed, it sounds like he wants for everyone else in the city to compensate him for his misfortune? If he didn't get the sandwich shop job could he sue the city over that?

setr 5y ago
As I understand it, the problem is the defense strategy, not the particular case at hand. They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance. That in this case they shouldn’t be at fault is not the issue; if the case was more blatantly the opposite (the user was clearly not at any fault), bird would still be making the same argument
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They’ve essentially composed an argument that makes it impossible for bird, or the city, to ever be at fault, irrespective of circumstance. That's not true; California law has limits on indemnity agreements, most notably that they don't apply to wilfull misconduct (and, in some domains, also not to harms due to the sole negligence of the indemnified party, but it's not clear to me that any of those apply here.) So there are clearly circumstances to which the chain indemnity here would not apply, if either the city or Bird had willful wrongdoing. The specific circumstances Peña alleges in this case don't meet that description, though.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The point is that Bird is using an arbitration agreement between them and an end user to not have to pony up according to the terms of their indemnification agreement with the city. No, they aren't; they are ponying up and coming after Peña to pay them back. That's kind of how indemnity agreements, in general, work. The point is that Peña is suing the city and, if the various indemnity agreements all hold up, also paying for the city’s defense against his lawsuit and paying any damages that the city is found liable for in that suit. Which means that, if the indemnity agreement holds up, the net result will be Peña paying all the legal bills and court costs and receiving nothing, irrespective of the outcome of the main lawsuit.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]