Uber ordered to pay $40M over death of woman left on Southern California freeway(ktla.com)
28 pointsby hentrep10 hours ago4 comments
  • logankeenan6 hours ago
    The judge “concluding the company is legally responsible for the conduct of its driver”.

    I’m not a layer, but doesn’t that open up a precedent where others could be more willing sue Uber now for damages caused by their driver?

    • bluefirebrand4 hours ago
      Good. Companies shouldn't be able to get out of having good public behavior just by not having employees
      • alex435782 hours ago
        Right? Nobody should be responsible for their own actions, if there's somebody with deeper pockets to sue.
        • gamblor9562 hours ago
          The driver is also liable.

          Uber is liable here because they employed the driver.

  • 7 hours ago
    undefined
  • aaron6959 hours ago
    [dead]
  • alex435786 hours ago
    Wild that they think this is A) Uber's fault or B) worth $40M.
    • kashunstva6 hours ago
      The driver was acting on behalf of Uber and was found to have acted in a negligent manner. Whose fault was this, if not Uber’s? If not $40M, what should this young woman’s life be valued at?
      • alex435786 hours ago
        The driver's fault. Is there any evidence it was Uber's policies or actions that caused this?

        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?

        • 16594470915 hours ago
          > 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?

          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...

          • alex435782 hours ago
            That's about the closest value you'll find to what human life is economically valued at. Do you have an alternate measure that is grounded in anything?
        • tmnvix5 hours ago
          Lifetime earnings? That is a very poor measure of a person's life.
          • alex435782 hours ago
            It's an economic measure for what should be an economic question. Taking the statistical value of a human life as a baseline feels pretty fair, and adjusting it upwards for special circumstances seems reasonable.

            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?

          • 90d4 hours ago
            That's what happens when you live in a company, not a country.
            • alex435782 hours ago
              As compared to your implied view where any amount of money can appear from thin air, and law should be dictated exclusively by feelings?
    • rationalist6 hours ago
      A) If someone acting on behalf of a company does something bad, the company is at fault.

      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.

      • alex435786 hours ago
        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.

        • kashunstva6 hours ago
          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.
          • alex435782 hours ago
            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?

          • stevenhuangan hour ago
            > 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?

        • amanaplanacanal6 hours ago
          As the article noted, this was not a jury trial, this was decided by an arbitration judge.
          • camkego3 hours ago
            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.
          • alex435786 hours ago
            Arbitrators going to arbitrate then. There's a reason why you want to settle before jury verdicts and opt of arbitration whenever possible.
            • f30e3dfed1c94 hours ago
              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..."
        • 6 hours ago
          undefined
        • bluefirebrand4 hours ago
          > 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.

          • alex435782 hours ago
            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.

            • an hour ago
              undefined
            • gamblor9562 hours ago
              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.

        • gamblor9562 hours ago
          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?