Man victim of 'vomit fraud,' and his wife found the video to prove it
wday.com
wday.com
My own suggestion of a solution (in the short-term) remains to alert passengers that they are getting charged a fee for making a mess in the car before the trip concludes, within the app. It's possible this could lead to confrontation between drivers and passengers, but taxi cabs do this every single day. Moreover, I have to think very few Uber/Lyft drivers would be brazen enough to assess a charge when no damage had been done. At the very least, it would allow a passenger the opportunity to take their own photo and video before exiting the car.
If you think the car is damaged they know it likely was the previous renter. It should be the same story when you get in a Lyft. "Is it clean enough?" and "Did you leave it dirty?" are your feedback to the company about how you think the place was left. Maybe add in photographic evidence...
Don't ask for pictures to be uploaded, just ask if there was damage before the next ride can be accepted, and if there was ask for pictures right there, right then. Flag anything within 10 minutes of the end of the ride as suspicious and that will cut out 99 percent of this.
I've definitely heard of drivers getting cracked down on for "misuse" of phones, legit or not
This is more an issue with lazy or unmotivated policing rather than need for more and more specific laws. The driver is acting dishonestly to defraud the passenger of money. There are numerous statutes regulating fraudulent criminal conduct ranging from street scams to Bernie Madoff.
The fact there is a private contract between them regulating their commercial transaction does not obviate the need for both parties to comply with criminal law.
I wonder why the reporter did not seek any input from anyone legally trained. Relying on the police, who have no incentive to overly burden themselves with non-revenue generating police work, to inform the public on whether something is criminal or not is half-assed journalism.
I thought the same thing. Then my distracted yellow cab driver blew an intersection, got us T-boned, and I cracked a rib. Distracted driving rules exist for a reason. Lyft et al used to be more vigilant. Lyft recently slackened, and I think that’s a shame.
did you get compensated for pain and suffering?
I called Lyft to complain. The driver claimed that I assaulted her. Despite the GPS records, eyewitnesses, and police report to the contrary, Lyft sided with her.
Switched to Uber immediately, and charged back every ride I'd ever taken with Lyft.
Uhh. That's not okay.
Lawyer estimated roughly $100k for false imprisonment, IIED and slander, not including punitive damages due to those being intentional torts. However, the case would have taken 5 years in the California court system and being a party to litigation can affect your credit quite dramatically, so I passed.
Then you should have done that, rather than fraudulently requesting chargebacks.
Meanwhile, as a driver, you have to deal with someone vomiting in your car every few hundred rides. If it happens, you're done for the shift, and there's no making up for those lost hours.
Good grief, can it suck any worse to be a driver? Public outrage is focused on the exceptional case and ignores the common case.
and? the exceptional case is caused by malice whereas the common case isn't. that's where the outrage is from.
As a driver, my expectation from the passanger is that he will get in the car, do some small talk and get out of the car as soon as we arrive. There are chances that the passanger is sick, dirty, smelly, unpolite, unfriendly, noisy, drunk. With that comes the risk that he might mess up your car, especially if he is sick or drunk.
So I think, both, the driver and the passanger know exactly what they are getting into. No need for a „oh the poor taxi drivers!!“
It looks like these companies don't yet have a solution for the exceptional case. Relying on passengers to 'prove' the fraud and charging them $50-150 if they can't is a terrible solution.
The "terms of service" are there to absolve a corporation of fraud and what would otherwise be criminal acts by virtue of contracts. This is yet another example of how one-sided contracts of adhesion are in this country.
I assume there is an accepted normal rate of passengers vomiting. Maybe something like ~5% for midnight to 6:00am rides.
If a driver goes significantly over that rate, Lyft should be able to spot that something is up way before it gets to tracking down security footage.
But, per article, this was a 40-something clean-cut guy by himself (it said this was after his 25th high school reunion). Bad choice of target by the driver.
Well, I would imagine if it gets picked up nationally then some local politician or more probably the local DA. Someone will want to enhance their political career. A lot of these folks talk to others in their same positions in other communities, so it might end up being one of those waves. Lack of proper customer relations could come back and bite when dealing with the locals.