3 ms·

A) If someone acting on behalf of a company does something bad, the company is at fault. B) Jury is going to Jury. I imagine Uber might offer to settle at a f

A) If someone acting on behalf of a company does something bad, the company is at fault. B) Jury is going to Jury. I imagine Uber might offer to settle at a fraction of that for an immediate payout versus dragging it out with appeals to lower the amount etc. The family might take a smaller sum immediately, rather than an unknown sum years later.

alex43578 7d ago
Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors. The driver as an individual stopped the car and forced them out, because they were puking in his private vehicle. It wasn't the Uber app saying stop here and get out/force them out, to my knowledge. Yup. Instances like this, the Clancy trial, and others really highlight the flaws in our jury system when considering the complexities of the modern world/legal system.
- deleted 7d ago
  [deleted]
- kashunstva 7d ago
  Uber should present itself differently, then, to users and should clearly warn them that they may be subject to capricious and potentially negligent actions by those with whom it contracts to drive. I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner.
  - alex43578 7d ago
    When you hail a regular taxi from Mike's Yellow Taxi, do you think you are subject to the "capricious and potentially negligent actions" of that driver, without being given a waiver to sign? Do you assume they have any additional training beyond a "for hire" license, and do you expect that Mike's Yellow Taxi has trained them to act in a safe manner?
    - 8n4vidtmkvmk 7d ago
      Probably actually. I don't know anything about taxis but AFAIK its harder to get hired as a taxi driver so I would expect a little more training than Uber. Not a lot, but something
  - stevenhuang 7d ago
    > I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner. Are you for real?
- amanaplanacanal 7d ago
  As the article noted, this was not a jury trial, this was decided by an arbitration judge.
  - alex43578 7d ago
    Arbitrators going to arbitrate then. There's a reason why you want to settle before jury verdicts and opt of arbitration whenever possible.
    - f30e3dfed1c9 7d ago
      It's Uber forcing the matter into arbitration: "By agreeing to these Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim and/or lawsuit that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in binding arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement..."
  - camkego 7d ago
    This seems like a very surprising point of what happened here, sure, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a $40 million award by a jury, but that’s kind of unusual from an arbitration judge isn’t it? The whole reason companies mandate arbitration in their EULAs (or equivalent) is so the can avoid 40 million judgments.
- bluefirebrand 7d ago
  > Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors I don't think that should really matter when you're engaging in activities that are "on duty" The driver was acting as a representative of Uber. They were on a job for Uber.
  - alex43578 7d ago
    There's a huge legal distinction there, and it affects taxes, liability, etc. It's distinct from the lay understanding of "working for Uber". If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? If Doordash has a policy encouraging running red lights, sure; but if it's just because they as an individual made a bad decision, Doordash shouldn't be liable. The legal system should assign blame to the guilty, not encourage hunting for a tenuous connection to whoever has the deepest pockets.
    - gamblor956 7d ago
      If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? Yes. This is settled law dude. It's a form of vicarious liability and had been around for a very long time.
      - alex43578 7d ago
        Except that settled law generally doesn't apply to independent contractors, absent specific exceptions, which I can't tell apply from this poorly written news article.
        quickthrowman 7d ago
        When did you pass the bar exam in whatever state you practice law in?
        gamblor956 5d ago
        Except that settled law generally doesn't apply to independent contractors Except it does... My contract, as a customer, isn't with the independent contractor. It's with the company. I, as a customer, don't care whether the worker is an employee or an IC, and for tort liability purposes neither do the courts.
- gamblor956 7d ago
  The distinction is primarily for tax purposes. Companies are responsible for the actions of independent contractors working for the company. This has been the law for...decades... Why are you trying so hard to defend a multibillion dollar corporation?
  - alex43578 7d ago
    Except the distinction also applies in tort law, which you apparently missed. I'm not arguing in defense of Uber, but to point out how ridiculous this legal jackpot is in the face of established law. Modern society seems to have thrown out any semblance of justice, fairness, and consistency in favor of who's got the best sob story or has the right skin color/ethnic group/income level/ political connections for that particular venue.
    - Dusseldorf 7d ago
      A woman died, and your description of that is "a legal jackpot"?
      - LocalH 7d ago
        They must hold Uber stock to be simping this hard for them
        alex43578 6d ago
        Just highlighting the hypocrisy of our legal system. All victims of traffic accidents in California are equal, but some are more equal than others [when the perpetrator is an independent contractor for Uber, rather than an illegal immigrant driving a commercial truck].
        linhvn 5d ago
        Then your point is? One should not make Uber pay $40M to the fatal victim's family, or one should make the driver pay $40M to the victim's family (which the driver definitely does not have $40M), or one should award all the traffic fatalities the same amount? In a just world, I may concur with third, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.
- preg_match 7d ago
  Uber wants you to think their drivers are just contractors, precisely for this reason. Having employees has a cost, a brand cost and liability cost. So, everyone is a contractor. But that’s not actually how it works. These are Uber employees. They don’t have free rein: they have to follow Uber procedures and policies, and are directly associated with the Uber brand. You can’t get all the benefits of real employees but call them contractors, doesn’t work that way. In essence, their private property and actions are an extension of the uber brand. Think about it: if the consumer has a bad drive, who do they associate that with? The driver, whose name they don’t remember, or uber, where they ordered and experienced the ride? Of course uber. And, uber is not off the hook for driver behavior, because they do control and influence it to a large extent. Uber drivers are subject to Ubers processes like any company employee would be.

alex43578 7d ago

Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors. The driver as an individual stopped the car and forced them out, because they were puking in his private vehicle. It wasn't the Uber app saying stop here and get out/force them out, to my knowledge. Yup. Instances like this, the Clancy trial, and others really highlight the flaws in our jury system when considering the complexities of the modern world/legal system.

deleted 7d ago
[deleted]
kashunstva 7d ago
Uber should present itself differently, then, to users and should clearly warn them that they may be subject to capricious and potentially negligent actions by those with whom it contracts to drive. I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner.
- alex43578 7d ago
  When you hail a regular taxi from Mike's Yellow Taxi, do you think you are subject to the "capricious and potentially negligent actions" of that driver, without being given a waiver to sign? Do you assume they have any additional training beyond a "for hire" license, and do you expect that Mike's Yellow Taxi has trained them to act in a safe manner?
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 7d ago
    Probably actually. I don't know anything about taxis but AFAIK its harder to get hired as a taxi driver so I would expect a little more training than Uber. Not a lot, but something
- stevenhuang 7d ago
  > I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner. Are you for real?
amanaplanacanal 7d ago
As the article noted, this was not a jury trial, this was decided by an arbitration judge.
- alex43578 7d ago
  Arbitrators going to arbitrate then. There's a reason why you want to settle before jury verdicts and opt of arbitration whenever possible.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 7d ago
    It's Uber forcing the matter into arbitration: "By agreeing to these Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim and/or lawsuit that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in binding arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement..."
- camkego 7d ago
  This seems like a very surprising point of what happened here, sure, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a $40 million award by a jury, but that’s kind of unusual from an arbitration judge isn’t it? The whole reason companies mandate arbitration in their EULAs (or equivalent) is so the can avoid 40 million judgments.
bluefirebrand 7d ago
> Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors I don't think that should really matter when you're engaging in activities that are "on duty" The driver was acting as a representative of Uber. They were on a job for Uber.
- alex43578 7d ago
  There's a huge legal distinction there, and it affects taxes, liability, etc. It's distinct from the lay understanding of "working for Uber". If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? If Doordash has a policy encouraging running red lights, sure; but if it's just because they as an individual made a bad decision, Doordash shouldn't be liable. The legal system should assign blame to the guilty, not encourage hunting for a tenuous connection to whoever has the deepest pockets.
  - gamblor956 7d ago
    If someone is doing a Doordash delivery, runs a red light and hits someone, is it Doordash's fault? Yes. This is settled law dude. It's a form of vicarious liability and had been around for a very long time.
    - alex43578 7d ago
      Except that settled law generally doesn't apply to independent contractors, absent specific exceptions, which I can't tell apply from this poorly written news article.
      - quickthrowman 7d ago
        When did you pass the bar exam in whatever state you practice law in?
      - gamblor956 5d ago
        Except that settled law generally doesn't apply to independent contractors Except it does... My contract, as a customer, isn't with the independent contractor. It's with the company. I, as a customer, don't care whether the worker is an employee or an IC, and for tort liability purposes neither do the courts.
gamblor956 7d ago
The distinction is primarily for tax purposes. Companies are responsible for the actions of independent contractors working for the company. This has been the law for...decades... Why are you trying so hard to defend a multibillion dollar corporation?
- alex43578 7d ago
  Except the distinction also applies in tort law, which you apparently missed. I'm not arguing in defense of Uber, but to point out how ridiculous this legal jackpot is in the face of established law. Modern society seems to have thrown out any semblance of justice, fairness, and consistency in favor of who's got the best sob story or has the right skin color/ethnic group/income level/ political connections for that particular venue.
  - Dusseldorf 7d ago
    A woman died, and your description of that is "a legal jackpot"?
    - LocalH 7d ago
      They must hold Uber stock to be simping this hard for them
      - alex43578 6d ago
        Just highlighting the hypocrisy of our legal system. All victims of traffic accidents in California are equal, but some are more equal than others [when the perpetrator is an independent contractor for Uber, rather than an illegal immigrant driving a commercial truck].
        linhvn 5d ago
        Then your point is? One should not make Uber pay $40M to the fatal victim's family, or one should make the driver pay $40M to the victim's family (which the driver definitely does not have $40M), or one should award all the traffic fatalities the same amount? In a just world, I may concur with third, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.
preg_match 7d ago
Uber wants you to think their drivers are just contractors, precisely for this reason. Having employees has a cost, a brand cost and liability cost. So, everyone is a contractor. But that’s not actually how it works. These are Uber employees. They don’t have free rein: they have to follow Uber procedures and policies, and are directly associated with the Uber brand. You can’t get all the benefits of real employees but call them contractors, doesn’t work that way. In essence, their private property and actions are an extension of the uber brand. Think about it: if the consumer has a bad drive, who do they associate that with? The driver, whose name they don’t remember, or uber, where they ordered and experienced the ride? Of course uber. And, uber is not off the hook for driver behavior, because they do control and influence it to a large extent. Uber drivers are subject to Ubers processes like any company employee would be.