Unless something specifically related to Uber contributed to the accident, it seems like this should be a matter between the passengers and the driver/the driver’s insurance company.
008Zulu on
“How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?” said Mrs McGinty.
It *is* America. They made it legal to sign away your rights there.
droidonomy on
It’s the Disney+ thing all over again.
irredentistdecency on
Arbitration clauses should only be valid for claims under a certain amount.
fxkatt on
*Arbitration means the dispute is settled through a third party rather than in court – in this case a lawyer appointed by Uber.*
“By Uber?” Between the tiny print “terms of use” which no one reads until they’re absolutely forced to by circumstance, and an Uber-appointed arbitrator, this is worse than Kafka.
Sirmalta on
This kinda seems like bs.
Taking a ride so you dont have to drive shoulndt be a legal weapon.
Like, you now the service, you know the risk, shit happens. Unless the driver was breaking the law when the accident happened then I dont see the issue.
Like, “i dont drive so if I get in a car accident I can sue my uber driver” is a pretty dark world to live in.
whats_good_is_bad on
Now do air BNB.
letskill on
Vast majority of countries in the world recognize the clear imbalance of powers in such contracts, and consider arbitration clauses to be unconscionable.
And also they recognize that you can’t sign away your rights.
The US does not.
OddBank9124 on
> The McGintys argue they had not understood they were forfeiting their right to sue the company.
This is why we need stronger consumer protection laws. All these big mega corps make all these complicated contracts for the end user which no one has the time to read. We need a governing body that signs off on what the contract is, so these companies can’t pull in stupid shit like this.
Its is just like the South Park episode where Kyle accidentally signed up for the Human Centipad project and gets his mouth stitched to an Asian man’s Anus.
BWWFC on
FTS.
cannot sign away your human rights under any circumstances, or this means nothing as a country.
exccord on
Starting to be a common theme.
SportyGalLady9 on
It’s frustrating to see companies like Uber leverage these terms, often hidden in fine print, to sidestep accountabilityy.
KountMacula on
Billionaires. The Gods Americans worship and obey.
wickedsmaht on
Seems to be some confusion here and the article doesn’t do a good job of explaining it. While an Uber driver has passengers in their vehicle the Uber insurance policy is the primary insurance. These policies carry a minimum of $1m umbrella for any one claim. This means there is one big pot of money that damage and injury claims are paid from for any one incident.
Uber contracts these policies out to companies like Progressive and Geico to handle. For an incident like this there absolutely would have been an insurance claim opened and from the sounds of the article the McGinty’s have not yet reached a settlement for their injuries. Statutes of Limitations varies state to state but usually you have 2 years from the date of loss to either settle a claim or you have to file suit if you want to continue fighting. The article makes it sound as though the McGinty’s were looking to sue just Uber but thanks to the arbitration clause they cannot, instead they will have to file a suit against the insurance company handling the policy.
hypercomms2001 on
This is why I never use Uber. They screw their workers, and they screw the people that use their services.
15 Comments
Unless something specifically related to Uber contributed to the accident, it seems like this should be a matter between the passengers and the driver/the driver’s insurance company.
“How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?” said Mrs McGinty.
It *is* America. They made it legal to sign away your rights there.
It’s the Disney+ thing all over again.
Arbitration clauses should only be valid for claims under a certain amount.
*Arbitration means the dispute is settled through a third party rather than in court – in this case a lawyer appointed by Uber.*
“By Uber?” Between the tiny print “terms of use” which no one reads until they’re absolutely forced to by circumstance, and an Uber-appointed arbitrator, this is worse than Kafka.
This kinda seems like bs.
Taking a ride so you dont have to drive shoulndt be a legal weapon.
Like, you now the service, you know the risk, shit happens. Unless the driver was breaking the law when the accident happened then I dont see the issue.
Like, “i dont drive so if I get in a car accident I can sue my uber driver” is a pretty dark world to live in.
Now do air BNB.
Vast majority of countries in the world recognize the clear imbalance of powers in such contracts, and consider arbitration clauses to be unconscionable.
And also they recognize that you can’t sign away your rights.
The US does not.
> The McGintys argue they had not understood they were forfeiting their right to sue the company.
This is why we need stronger consumer protection laws. All these big mega corps make all these complicated contracts for the end user which no one has the time to read. We need a governing body that signs off on what the contract is, so these companies can’t pull in stupid shit like this.
Its is just like the South Park episode where Kyle accidentally signed up for the Human Centipad project and gets his mouth stitched to an Asian man’s Anus.
FTS.
cannot sign away your human rights under any circumstances, or this means nothing as a country.
Starting to be a common theme.
It’s frustrating to see companies like Uber leverage these terms, often hidden in fine print, to sidestep accountabilityy.
Billionaires. The Gods Americans worship and obey.
Seems to be some confusion here and the article doesn’t do a good job of explaining it. While an Uber driver has passengers in their vehicle the Uber insurance policy is the primary insurance. These policies carry a minimum of $1m umbrella for any one claim. This means there is one big pot of money that damage and injury claims are paid from for any one incident.
Uber contracts these policies out to companies like Progressive and Geico to handle. For an incident like this there absolutely would have been an insurance claim opened and from the sounds of the article the McGinty’s have not yet reached a settlement for their injuries. Statutes of Limitations varies state to state but usually you have 2 years from the date of loss to either settle a claim or you have to file suit if you want to continue fighting. The article makes it sound as though the McGinty’s were looking to sue just Uber but thanks to the arbitration clause they cannot, instead they will have to file a suit against the insurance company handling the policy.
This is why I never use Uber. They screw their workers, and they screw the people that use their services.