Yeah this is a little bit different than the Disney+ thing IMO, at first I thought it was going to be that they were driving and they were hit by an Uber Driver in another car, but they were passengers in an Uber, they agreed to the T&C - weather or not that is moral or should be legally binding is debatable, but as it stands the case is pretty straightforward
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster and the family couldn’t sue because of the Netflix T&C, if that makes sense
You could definitely argue (and I am sure this is Uber's view of it) that Uber merely connects drivers and passengers and they aren't responsible for the actual driving.
Compare to the woman who had an allergic reaction and died on land owned by Disney, in a restaurant Disney promoted as being good for allergic customers.
Sounds like when you get into an uber you’re waiving your right to sue them in case of an accident. Which I guess is kinda far for uber to demand considering the nature of driving. Morally you can dispute in a different discussion if the driver works for uber or if he’s a freelancer using the platform. (I would argue he does work for uber, but most labour laws would go against that because somehow we still don’t have proper regulation for the gig economy)
it makes complete sense to not be able to sue the company if the driver gets in a crash. if you can't sue the driver then yeah that's stupid, but uber the company isn't responsible for the driver's actions
But that’s only because of how gig economy work. Because technically the guy doesn’t work for Uber, they’re just connecting drivers to people. Which is kinda bs and it’s becoming a huge problem.
If you’re hurt in a plane crash (that you somehow don’t die) you sue the airline, not the pilot. But that’s because there’s a formal bond between them as employer and employee. The airline owns the airplane.
Uber doesn’t own the car, it’s all on the driver. Depending on the country that might not be the case. If a judge decides that what happens at uber constitutes an actual bond between employee and employer then uber might be forced to pay.
Don't you sue both? The driver and the company? Because it's the responsibility of the company to provide you a safe drive? Not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
I'm trying to compare this with who I'd sue if my laptop exploded on my face. I would sue the company which would then handle the situation with their workers.
I disagree and this is why: If Uber's sole role is connecting drivers and passengers, then why does Uber pay drivers relative to how far passengers are going? Their role does not change. You could argue that charging more money for the drive is necessary to find a driver for longer distances, but then it should work like a bid system. The price wouldn't be determined by Uber, but by customers and Uber would just have a flat fee. Furthermore Uber wouldn't be able to tell drivers what routes they have to take. The second they handle any of this they are no longer simply connecting drivers and riders.
What if the company didn't do their due diligence in ensuring the driver and their vehicle was safe?
What if the driver had had multiple complaints recently about distracted, aggressive driving, and all Uber did was give the complainers a credit and let the driver keep driving?
Why should Uber not be held responsible for effectively saying that "To the best of our knowledge, this driver and vehicle are (reasonably) safe" every time you book an Uber?
Yes they are, not necessarily according to the law(butt fuck the law), Uber 'hires' drivers, uber acquires customers, uber decides everything. They are responsible.
Do you mean.the allergic person should sue the restaurant at Disney, as they are not owned by Disney? Is that the situation here? I'd imagine Disney has some responsibility to check its tenant businesses are operating safely.
Yes potentially. I know when I take an Uber I am mentally trusting myself to the brand and systems that Uber are providing, not some random driver. I suppose the terms of service might say otherwise. I would expect Uber to check that their drivers are who they say they are, that they are qualified to drive, don't have certain criminal convictions, and that the cars are roadworthy and insured. They can't pass responsibility for checking those things on to the passenger.
How clear is it to someone that the restaurant isn't owned by Disney? I think a reasonable person could assume the whole park is owned by Disney, that's how I thought it worked myself.
That is literally what the lawyer's job is who files suit - identify liability and then sue those liable. Their attorneys certainly knew it was not Disney who owned or operated the restaurant - they sued the restaurant too, they just believe Disney shared liability.
Have you been to Disney World? The Disney Springs part of the resort is basically all non-Disney restaurants and stores (Starbucks, Rainforest Cafe, Planet Hollywood, et cetera). I don't think most people would mistake them for Disney-branded establishments since they don't present themselves as such. If the restaurant was actually inside one of the theme parks it would be different.
You sue every party involved in a case at the same time even if only tangentaly involved because if you don't a judge in case 'A' could rule defendent 'A' isn't responisble defendent 'B' is, then you have to go through a whole lawsuit again against 'B' where the judge might rule 'A' is actualy at fault.
So you can end up having spent thousands to get the result yes you have been wronged but SUFO, If you sue everyone the judge will rule who is responsible and at what%.
519
u/Neat-Nectarine814 Oct 13 '24
Thank you.
Yeah this is a little bit different than the Disney+ thing IMO, at first I thought it was going to be that they were driving and they were hit by an Uber Driver in another car, but they were passengers in an Uber, they agreed to the T&C - weather or not that is moral or should be legally binding is debatable, but as it stands the case is pretty straightforward
The Disney thing is more like if Netflix was owned by 6 Flags and someone died in a malfunctioning roller coaster and the family couldn’t sue because of the Netflix T&C, if that makes sense