How would regulation have prevented this at all? A cab would be as likely to hit the child.
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.So dreht sich alles auf der Welt.
The contention in the suit, however, seems to be that Uber's app is designed not to be hands free, and on that basis asserts negligence on Uber's part (where "negligence" is defined as "actions a reasonable person would deem likely to cause serious injury or death that are willfully undertaken despite that risk" — or something to that effect; lawyers reading along at home please correct or clarify as needed).
EDIT: s/criminal negligence/negligence/g
There is significant overlap between the elements and standards necessary to warrant punitive damages and criminal negligence statues, but they aren't identical and the two processes are entirely separate in terms of how and whether they proceed.
I have never been in a cab with a hands-free meter or GPS. Does a hands-free taxi meter even exist? They're pretty analog devices with buttons you push to stop or start them.
Uber's app, however, requires poking at your smartphone screen.
Ideally, cabbies and Uber drivers make all their necessary communication noodling while stopped, in between fares. In reality, both frequently distract themselves with both the necessary navigational/fare stuff they have to do with phone/GPS/meter and unnecessary calling/texting besides.
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.Okay with a more thorough search I found an actual claim of the specific driver being distracted on page 9 of the suit, not sure why I didn't find it before.