Hacker News Reader

The cynical answer: they sue uber because uber has money and the driver has approximately none. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone.

The less cynical answer: they have a business relationship with Uber. They looked at Uber’s logo as they were ordering. Uber took their money. Uber is who appears in their bank statement. They had no control over which driver drives them, Uber did. They had no information about the driver except what little Uber provided them with. If not for Uber they would have never been able to connect with the driver. Uber’s reputation is why they trusted the driver.

> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end.

Sounds like very good reasons why Uber is liable then?

> How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?

It also sounds like your very own comment answers this question. By vetting the drivers. By checking the cars. By not looking the other way when accounts are rented illicitly, and so on and so on.

Maybe less cynical answer: maybe because Uber states that they provide insurance for drivers and riders and that’s why?

https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#

There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.

Maybe the sort of liability you tout on your own website telling your customers how safe you keep them and how much everything is insured????

https://www.uber.com/us/en/safety/#

“ There’s auto insurance to help protect you Leading auto insurance providers help protect riders and drivers on the Uber app. Uber maintains commercial auto insurance in case of a covered accident, including at least $1 million in liability insurance on behalf of drivers and delivery people once a ride is accepted.”

> Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers.

This is an illusion they have been keen to promote in many places, but one which has been shattered in various courts. Drivers are considered workers or even employees in some countries[1].

> They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver's end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?

Indeed, and this is a major problem, companies should not be able to run with such poor practices and such little accountability.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/19/uber-driv...

> Since all that Uber does is write an app

They not only wrote the app, but they host the service and charge the end customer - you aren't paying the driver, you pay uber, who clip the ticket and then pay the remainder on (less taxes) to the driver.

So if an Airbnb host steals your laptop, Airbnb should be responsible?

Possibly not, possibly yes if it is a one time theft depending on juridictions. Definitely yes if this a repeat and it has been made known to them through several customer complaints visiting same host.

If a hotel cleaner steals your laptop, the hotel should not be responsible?

Airbnb didn't provide you the accommodation. Airbnb only supplies a marketplace service to the host.

For sure. Airbnb can then go sue the host, but the user has a contract with Airbnb not the host. Maybe then Airbnb would start giving a single shit about abusive hosts.

if a hotel manager steals your laptop, yes, you can sue the hotel.

Does Airbnb choose where you stay? Because Uber chooses who you drive with, and has all the data around that driver, whereas you do not. Completely different scenarios.

> So if an Airbnb host steals your laptop, Airbnb should be responsible?

This is like saying "So if an employee of a hotel booked through Booking.com steals your laptop, Booking.com should be responsible?", where the answer is no. When you book on Booking.com or Airbnb you are freely choosing where you stay, and using the platform only as a marketplace.

However, in Uber's case, you are supposedly insured by uber, and you hire them to provide a service, which is then assigned to a driver. You can't choose the driver you get, or the car or whatever, so it's not a marketplace.

A case like Airbnb would also be any flight booking app like Expedia or Skyscanner, where you can see what multiple airlines offer and choose from them, and then book with the airline. If something happens, you file a claim or lawsuit against the airline.

Edit: I'm not talking about factual law, IANAL and I'm not in the US so there's that. I'm talking about what it _should_ be and what _would_ be fair.

Because that's not how product liability works, like at all.

You can, as you say, blame the driver. It's not clear from my reading the article who is at fault here for the accident. But there's a broader liability issue: does Uber engage in practices that make such an accident more likely? Do they do so knowing this?

Example: imagine Uber lets a driver continually take rides for 30 hours straight. At some point the driver is fatigued and is more likely to crash. This is a foreseeable issue so, if it were true (and I'm not saying it is; this is just an example), Uber could still be liable.

The Uber ToS of course seek to limit liability by forfeiting rights and submitting to binding arbitration. This state court has upheld the enforceability of the Uber ToS. That's not binding on any other state so this has a long way to go before becoming a useful legal precedent.

> Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves

Is there an allegation of negligence on Uber's part? For example, did the driver have a history of accidents? If so, I could see liability extending to them.

You answered the question.

> I honestly don't understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber's camp.

> Uber ... do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber.

If I am in a vehicle accident and hit by a commercial vehicle (and in fact I have been, though not an Uber, vehicle totaled and I was injured), the insurance policy is held by the employer, and generally I would also sue the employer, not the individual driver (and if I did, I would expect that the employer or their insurer would come between us).

The whole "pretending they don't work for Uber" is a free pass to all sorts of shenanigans. You're right, "how could they be possibly be aware?" - but that's the point, they're doing these things to try not to be aware, for exactly these reasons (as well as the employment benefits and local regulation crap).

If a restaurant serves me expired food I don’t blame the chef, I blame the restaurant.

In this case the restaurant is the driver

No, in this case uber is the restaurant, and the fact that the driver/chef is supposedly a contractor or some such construct doesn't change that.

It's not though. They used an Uber app to order an Uber taxi, presumably with Uber branding outside, and Uber charged them money for it. Uber the corporation is the restaurant here.

Do they call the driver directly? Does the driver charge them directly inside the car? Nope, Uber does.

No. You have no business relationship with the driver. We are more likely in the case where the chief is an independent contractor in the restaurant. And especially, unlike the restaurant, you didn’t chose the driver.

Maybe (probably) the driver is at fault but as a customer, you only did business with Uber so you should sue Uber and get their money and then Uber should sue the driver and get their money (or their insurance money).

Many governments do not agree with that kind of tech feudalism technics and in many juridictions, Uber, as well as similar apps (like delivery apps) making use of legal loopholes to pretend they are just a platform are forced to be considered as employer because that is what they are really.

I kind of prefer that the entity that sells a consumer something is responsible for the good or service. If I book an Uber, I buy the service from Uber. If I order something from Amazon, I buy it from Amazon. There may be subcontractors and other internal bureaucratic details, but they should not concern me. If I do business with a company, it should not matter whether the service is ultimately provided by their employee, a freelancer, or another company. If something goes wrong, the company I dealt with should be liable. They may have internal processes for assigning the ultimate liability, but those should not concern me.

If this were the case, corporations would have no liability whatsoever, as they could always say “it was the employee acting independently.” They would then structure companies to be comprised entirely of contractors, not employees, to further emphasize this supposed division. (They’re already doing this last part, but more so they don’t have to provide benefits.)

The second paragraph of your post seems to imply negligence on the end of Uber if they're not vetting properly.

Uber also insures the rides, by law.

So they are liable to some extent.

Doesn't insurance waive and protect the parties from liability?

If the ill-fated ride was properly insured, why is this family so destitute from it? Didn't it pay out enough?

"Waive"? No.

Some protection, up to the limits of policy? Yes.

If I incur $200K in medical bills because of your negligence in an accident, and you're insured for $100K? I'm taking that $100K from your insurer, and filing suit against you for the other $100K.

(Whether or not I'll get it, and how quickly, etc., is a separate matter, but you don't get to say "Oh, no, I was insured, and they paid you, so I am indemnified now, regardless of how well that payment reflected what you were entitled to.")

As valid as your argument might be, it's different from the argument given for rejecting this case.

This is about the terms of use.