News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are by rayiner on Thursday June 26, 2014 @07:19AM (#7949037)
You can't sue Uber if a driver crashes, because drivers are independent contractors. You can sue the driver, but he has no money and can just dodge the judgment in bankruptcy.
Re:Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are by themartorana on Thursday June 26, 2014 @08:10AM (#7949176)
Are you sure? If I'm hit by a drunk driver I can sue the bar. All you need is one judge that thinks Uber has some culpability and you can sue away.
Re:Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are by rayiner on Thursday June 26, 2014 @08:59AM (#7949333)
There's two differences there: 1) those suits are the result of special laws ("dram shop laws") that extend liability to bars; 2) liability in those cases arises when the bar did something negligent (serve someone who appeared to be drunk, serve a minor, etc).

Absent a special law, you can only sue a business for the negligence of its employees under the theory of respondeat superior: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior. The essence of the theory is that businesses should be liable for the risks created by their employees acting within the scope of their employment.

However, respondeat superior does not apply when the tortfeasor (the person who acted negligently) is an independent contractor. When it comes to employees, a business can reduce incidences of negligence through training, setting procedures, etc. They exert a great deal of control over how the employee does his work. That's not true in the case of independent contractors, like Uber drivers.

Re:Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are by themartorana on Thursday June 26, 2014 @10:37PM (#7952522)
Thanks for that... I learned something today!
Re:Uber isn’t the problem; taxi regulations are by waps on Saturday June 28, 2014 @08:22AM (#7958014)
There is the basic principle that anyone can be sued for the consequences of their actions. Uber arranged that drive. They didn't check for insurance status. That could be cause enough. Plus between you and the driver there exists no business relationship. So you can argue that there's nothing to sue about.

Besides who would you sue ? "The driver" doesn't work too wel. You'd sue Uber to get the name of the driver in the first place.

This go-between-suit is pretty common in legal cases. What should happen is this. Judge agrees Uber owes your medical bills/restitution/whatever applies. Judge also agrees that Uber can get this amount from their driver. Then Uber has to cough up the money, but if they ask for delay in payment until their suit of the driver is finished, 99% certain they'll get that. Then you get the choice of getting the money from Uber, or joining Uber's suit against the driver (not a hard choice with Uber).