3 ms·

US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash: daughter agreed Uber Eats terms

37 points by ggm 2y ago

al_borland 2y ago
I’m not even sure why the issue is around arbitration. I just pulled up there TOS[0], and in section 8 is has verbiage that frees them from any and all liability. IANAL, but this seems like pretty standard stuff I’d expect from any car service, where they aren’t responsible for injury or death. > UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR … PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH … RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE Arbitration or in a court, where is their case when this is in the TOS? [0] https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-of-use&country=united-states&lang=en#_1t3h5sf https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-o...
- jdashg 2y ago
  TOSs aren't nearly as binding as you would think, particularly if a reasonable person would click "agree" yet not at least roughly understand the terms. A general "You release the company from even negligent liability" is just sovereign-citizen-like wishful thinking. This is part of why they include this classic: > If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced to the fullest extent under law.
NavinF 2y ago
> Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car couple says: >the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats uber's argument: > both that Georgia McGinty could not escape the agreement by claiming it was actually her daughter who agreed to updated terms, and that Georgia McGinty’s account had previously agreed to terms which also included an arbitration clause court opinion: > arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms I feel like this article is missing context. Insurance follows the car and Uber has at least $1M in insurance that covers riders. In the US people file an insurance claim after car crashes and the insurance pays damages. You'd never get compensation directly from the driver or the company. What was the result of the insurance claim and why are they suing Uber now (1 year after the accident)?
- willcipriano 2y ago
  If you have damages over what the insurance covers the insured is still liable. I think you actually always sue directly its just the insurance company pays for the lawyers and settlement. The lawsuit will be Bob Smith vs Allen Jefferson not Bob Smith vs Progressive Insurance.
  - NavinF 2y ago
    What I mean is that car crash insurance claims almost never go to court. Suing for more than the $1M coverage could be one reason, but the article doesn't say why. Anyway judges almost always honor arbitration clauses because it gets the case out of court. If anyone could get out of arbitration by saying "my daughter signed the agreement, not me" that would lead to a lot more cases getting tried in court
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - olliej 2y ago
      Medical bills can easily exceed a million, especially if multiple people are involved.
      - NavinF 2y ago
        Sure, if nobody involved has health insurance. In the US 92% do. Hell, in my state half the residents get health insurance for free with medicaid. In the normal case, the car insurance company just has to pay your 20k health insurance deductible. Again, the article just waffled on about some ToS without explaining how the plaintiff ended up in this situation
        FireBeyond 2y ago
        Uhhh, if your health insurer has a target with verified liability, they absolutely can, and will, if they deem it worth it, go after that party if your healthcare costs "fall through" to them. Otherwise it's a simple rort. Because after all, -you- are paying for your healthcare through insurance, directly or indirectly.
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Next, on Letho's Law.. Uber goes full Disney.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Again? [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657

37 points by ggm 2y ago

I’m not even sure why the issue is around arbitration. I just pulled up there TOS[0], and in section 8 is has verbiage that frees them from any and all liability. IANAL, but this seems like pretty standard stuff I’d expect from any car service, where they aren’t responsible for injury or death. > UBER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR … PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH … RESULTING FROM ANY USE OF THE SERVICES, REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE Arbitration or in a court, where is their case when this is in the TOS? [0] https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-of-use&country=united-states&lang=en#_1t3h5sf https://www.uber.com/legal/en/document/?name=general-terms-o...

jdashg 2y ago
TOSs aren't nearly as binding as you would think, particularly if a reasonable person would click "agree" yet not at least roughly understand the terms. A general "You release the company from even negligent liability" is just sovereign-citizen-like wishful thinking. This is part of why they include this classic: > If any provision of these Terms is held to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be struck and the remaining provisions shall be enforced to the fullest extent under law.

NavinF 2y ago

> Uber driver ran a red light and collided with another car couple says: >the couple does not recall seeing the “click box” on the date in question, 8 January, however – and surmise their daughter, who was a minor at the time, must have clicked it while monitoring a food delivery from Uber Eats uber's argument: > both that Georgia McGinty could not escape the agreement by claiming it was actually her daughter who agreed to updated terms, and that Georgia McGinty’s account had previously agreed to terms which also included an arbitration clause court opinion: > arbitration provision contained in Uber’s terms and conditions was “valid and enforceable”, despite the couple’s claims that it was their daughter who clicked agree to the updated terms of use months before their accident. Uber says Georgia McGinty had also previously agreed to the terms I feel like this article is missing context. Insurance follows the car and Uber has at least $1M in insurance that covers riders. In the US people file an insurance claim after car crashes and the insurance pays damages. You'd never get compensation directly from the driver or the company. What was the result of the insurance claim and why are they suing Uber now (1 year after the accident)?

willcipriano 2y ago
If you have damages over what the insurance covers the insured is still liable. I think you actually always sue directly its just the insurance company pays for the lawyers and settlement. The lawsuit will be Bob Smith vs Allen Jefferson not Bob Smith vs Progressive Insurance.
- NavinF 2y ago
  What I mean is that car crash insurance claims almost never go to court. Suing for more than the $1M coverage could be one reason, but the article doesn't say why. Anyway judges almost always honor arbitration clauses because it gets the case out of court. If anyone could get out of arbitration by saying "my daughter signed the agreement, not me" that would lead to a lot more cases getting tried in court
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - olliej 2y ago
    Medical bills can easily exceed a million, especially if multiple people are involved.
    - NavinF 2y ago
      Sure, if nobody involved has health insurance. In the US 92% do. Hell, in my state half the residents get health insurance for free with medicaid. In the normal case, the car insurance company just has to pay your 20k health insurance deductible. Again, the article just waffled on about some ToS without explaining how the plaintiff ended up in this situation
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        Uhhh, if your health insurer has a target with verified liability, they absolutely can, and will, if they deem it worth it, go after that party if your healthcare costs "fall through" to them. Otherwise it's a simple rort. Because after all, -you- are paying for your healthcare through insurance, directly or indirectly.

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

Next, on Letho's Law.. Uber goes full Disney.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Again? [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41704657