4 ms·
> 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" Th
by bluefirebrand 8d 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 agoThere'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 agoIf 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 agoExcept 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 agoWhen did you pass the bar exam in whatever state you practice law in?
- gamblor956 5d agoExcept 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.
- deleted 7d ago[deleted]
- bluefirebrand 7d ago> There's a huge legal distinction there, and it affects taxes, liability, etc Yes there is I'm saying there shouldn't be. It's exploitative.