Wild that they think this is A) Uber's fault or B) worth $40M.
The US government values a statistical life at anywhere from $7 to $12M. Is there any evidence that this woman's lifetime earnings would've exceeded that? If it's a "feels" argument, why not $80M or $200M?
Are you arguing that because she was a nice person, she should be worth more? If she was a mean person, should she be worth less?
Thats not what that means. "... when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution. [...] these estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often referred to as the "value of a statistical life.”[0]
> Is there any evidence it was Uber's policies or actions that caused this?
The arbitrator/judge believed there was enough that the company was legally responsible for the conduct and issued a fine to the company for that failure of responsibility to be paid to the parents -- not because he decided that was how much she was worth
[0] https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...
What about the pain and loss her family felt upon learning she died because she was left on a fucking freeway? That’s worth nothing in your eyes? If that’s the case you should do the following:
Take a nice long look in the mirror and please internalize the fact that it is people like you that are the literal problem with humanity. I don’t know how you got to that point and I don’t care. Please invest some time in cultivating empathy for your fellows. If you don’t know how try a Hero’s Journey worth of psilocybin.
There are 100+ fatal traffic accidents each day. Basically none of them will make the news, and almost none of them will result in a 40m+ payout.
Where is your empathy for the 99 other people that died on that day in similar (or even more tragic circumstances)? Why are their lives less important in the eyes of the courts, in monetary terms, and in public opinion?
But we’re not talking about me, we’re talking about your seemingly complete lack of empathy. Again, where is yours for the family of the woman who died, hmm? Because you reduced her to a number and a payout, which is only slightly dehumanizing. Why do you disregard “pain & suffering” as valid?
Again, that has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it mean.
> Do you have an alternate measure that is grounded in anything?
What? That is completely unrelated to this article and my post, I already clarified what that figured was for -- why are you stuck on this as determining a human lifes economical value? If that topic is near and dear to you for reasons you chose to keep hidden, I can understand why its got you bent, but this is not a relevant thread to air those personal grievances.
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.
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.
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?
Are you for real?
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.
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.
Yes. This is settled law dude. It's a form of vicarious liability and had been around for a very long time.
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.
Yes there is
I'm saying there shouldn't be. It's exploitative.
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?
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.
In a just world, I may concur with third, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.
Meanwhile, if you get hit by an illegal immigrant driving a commercial truck in California, you get nothing, while the criminal is set free back on the road: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/09/18/ice-lodges-detainer-ille...
Note that even if the driver was an independent contractor and this mattered, Uber would still have had liability for negligence due to their failure to properly vet and/or train the drivers working on their platform.
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.