Uber’s Denial of Liability in Death Raises Accident Accountability Questions | Hacker News Reader

Uber’s Denial of Liability in Death Raises Accident Accountability Questions

techcrunch.com

14 pointsusaphp16 comments

Suggesting that Uber is liable is probably going a bit far. He wasn't working for the company at the time of the accident, so why would the company be liable, in the same way that your employer is only liable for on the job injuries when you're... on the job. Even your commute to and from work is not covered (except possibly for some very strange circumstances).

At the same time, Uber could take a page out of AirBnB's playbook and just do everything they can for the driver and the injured family. The driver is part of their family of operators and the Liu family has just suffered a tragedy which involved an Uber contractor, on the job or not.

This is an accident, it was completely unintentional and very unfortunate. I'm actually saddened that the first reaction seems to be "who should be responsible".

I think your analogy of an employee commuting to work is wrong.

Is a taxi cab driver only working for the taxi company while they are driving passengers? I think most people probably would not think that's the case. Driving the car is what Uber drivers are supposed to do, so it's not wrong to assume that an Uber driver is working for Uber while driving around, waiting for their next fare. The fact that their insurance doesn't cover an Uber driver while in between fares sounds weird to me, but I guess it's a function of the Uber driver's employment agreement with Uber, which is probably too complex for regular people to be familiar with (I would never have guessed it).

I think the more interesting legal question is whether or not Uber has liability due to how potentially distracting the app is for an Uber driver. Polk and Ellis is a fairly well-trafficked intersection, so if I had to speculate, maybe the driver was distracted by the Uber app, looking for the next ride. If that's the case, and Uber knowingly made an app that is distracting to drivers, does Uber have any liability? If I were the family that was hit, that's certainly a question I would ask.

"...while driving around, waiting for their next fare."

Why drive around whilst waiting? It seems like a waste to do that unless you're a licensed taxi (and are therefore permitted to pick up people who spot you as you're driving around).

I would have to guess it has to do with the lack of parking, which is likely the same reason why the rideshare services are appealing in the first place.

Maybe, but it seems easier to just pull up somewhere and wait. Even if meter parking is expensive, you won't get a ticket for waiting in a meter spot if you are in the car (and can therefore move on at any time).

What if the cause for the accident was that the driver was responding to a 'ride available' text from Uber? It's not a bad argument to say that Uber requires that drivers pay attention to their cell phone when not in an active ride, hence they should be liable when the driver is able to respond to pick up requests (ie, is looking to do a pickup)

I'm with you as I don't understand why Uber is even being brought into this. No one would be talking about the liability of Apple if Tim Cook hit someone with his car. Uber did the right thing in suspending the driver but and it sounds cold but that's really the extent of their responsibility.

If Apple was paying Tim Cook to drive around as his only responsibility for Apple, then they would be talking about liability.

The key point in the article: "A rideshare driver might only have personal insurance that might not cover them while they have a rideshare app open, but the rideshare service might not cover them between rides."

This is the same as if I have car insurance, but it doesn't cover my current activity. In the UK, for example, car insurance for individuals usually covers at social, domestic and pleasure use ('SD&P'). When you buy insurance, you need to tick additional boxes (and maybe pay extra) if you want it to cover 'commuting to and from a fixed place of work' and/or 'business use'. Neither of these include using the car for deliveries or other things that are 'for hire or reward'.

Anyway, from my reading of the article, the key point is that Uber buys insurance which is meant to bridge the gap between the insurance the drivers already have (e.g. SD&P) and what they're doing (for hire or reward) but that the insurance may not do this exactly, leaving some unavoidable activity uninsured.

There has been an odd conflation of Uber and Lyft lately, and I can only assume it's on the part of people who want to stop one or both from existing.

Uber contracts out professional drivers who are already doing business as professional drivers for other organizations. They're operating like a dispatcher.

Lyft lets regular people pick up other folks using their own cars and insurance. It is not the same thing.

I don't think this raises any accountability questions for Uber at all. It should be a red flag to someone like Lyft, but honestly it's not a problem for Uber. They have a contract (not employee) relationship with their drivers, and not even an exclusive one at that. Most of the Uber drivers I know also respond to requests from other dispatchers. They just tend to like Uber better.

UberX is essentially Lyft. Do you know if the driver involved was an UberX driver or a professional driver? His car make/model seems to indicate UberX.

I don't know all the legal issues, but intuitively it seems strange to require one employer of a contractor to be required to ensure they have insurance for non-contracted work.

If a doctor delivers a baby at a hospital, would that hospital be liable if the doctor delivers a baby in an emergency in someone's house?

If you contract someone to come in for 8 hours a month to help with payroll, are you liable if they steal money from another company during their downtime?

This seems like part of an anti-Uber wave. (I have no stake in this horserace)

As a non-American I am missing some cultural context here. Where I live you need liability insurance to register a car. I don't know why commercial insurance is important.

The discussion about the apps possibly causing dangerous driving was hard for me to understand. If the apps are causing drivers to run over people then that is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Why would anyone care about the insurance enough to talk about it in the same discussion?

Your liability insurance probably only covers you for normal, personal, use of your vehicle. I suspect that anyone using that insurance for commercial work would not be covered if they had an accident. I don't think the insurance company would pay out unless the driver had suitable commercial coverage.

But if it didn't cover you then you would be deliberately driving uninsured. Who would risk that?

In the uk plenty of people knowingly drive un-insured. But sometimes people do errands for work (take these letters to the post office) and don't realise that they're uninsured.

And insurance companies employ huge quantities of people to find how people aren't covered by their insirance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com