Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex43578 | Hacker News Reader

Uber drivers broadly are considered independent contractors. The driver as an individual stopped the car and forced them out, because they were puking in his private vehicle. It wasn't the Uber app saying stop here and get out/force them out, to my knowledge.

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.

View on HN

Uber should present itself differently, then, to users and should clearly warn them that they may be subject to capricious and potentially negligent actions by those with whom it contracts to drive. I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner.

When you hail a regular taxi from Mike's Yellow Taxi, do you think you are subject to the "capricious and potentially negligent actions" of that driver, without being given a waiver to sign?

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?

Probably actually. I don't know anything about taxis but AFAIK its harder to get hired as a taxi driver so I would expect a little more training than Uber. Not a lot, but something

> I suspect that the average user doesn’t make a distinction between Uber and driver, and possibly assume that drivers are trained to act in a safe manner.

Are you for real?

Uber wants you to think their drivers are just contractors, precisely for this reason. Having employees has a cost, a brand cost and liability cost. So, everyone is a contractor.

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.

> 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.

There'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.

If 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.

Except 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.

When did you pass the bar exam in whatever state you practice law in?

Except 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.

> 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.

As the article noted, this was not a jury trial, this was decided by an arbitration judge.

Arbitrators going to arbitrate then. There's a reason why you want to settle before jury verdicts and opt of arbitration whenever possible.

It's Uber forcing the matter into arbitration: "By agreeing to these Terms, you agree that you are required to resolve any claim and/or lawsuit that you may have against Uber on an individual basis in binding arbitration as set forth in this Arbitration Agreement..."

This seems like a very surprising point of what happened here, sure, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a $40 million award by a jury, but that’s kind of unusual from an arbitration judge isn’t it? The whole reason companies mandate arbitration in their EULAs (or equivalent) is so the can avoid 40 million judgments.

The distinction is primarily for tax purposes.

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?

Except the distinction also applies in tort law, which you apparently missed.

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.

A woman died, and your description of that is "a legal jackpot"?

They must hold Uber stock to be simping this hard for them

Just highlighting the hypocrisy of our legal system. All victims of traffic accidents in California are equal, but some are more equal than others [when the perpetrator is an independent contractor for Uber, rather than an illegal immigrant driving a commercial truck].

Then your point is? One should not make Uber pay $40M to the fatal victim's family, or one should make the driver pay $40M to the victim's family (which the driver definitely does not have $40M), or one should award all the traffic fatalities the same amount?

In a just world, I may concur with third, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of good.

100 other people died that very day in traffic accidents. I'd wager all 100 of their families got far less than $40,000,000.

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...

How reliable is this information considering the trump administration hates California and other blue states?

Except your completely wrong, because if what you said was true then the arbitrator (paid for by Uber) wouldn't have ruled against Uber.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com