# Uber driver being sued ejecting drunk pax



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

*Parents of Long Beach Man Fatally Shot by Homeowner in 2014 Sue Uber, Driver, Shooter
*
http://lbpost.com/news/2000007913-p...fter-drunken-break-in-sue-uber-driver-shooter

The parents of a Long Beach man who allegedly strayed into a Bluff Heights residence by mistake and was fatally shot by the homeowner are suing the shooter, Uber and an Uber driver, according to a recently filed lawsuit. They claim Uber is liable because one of its drivers ordered him out of a car, knowing he was intoxicated.

The negligence suit was filed by Long Beach residents David and Lynn Anderson on Thursday in Los Angeles Superior Court against Uber Technologies, Uber driver Festus Ekuma Okoh of Buena Park and the homeowners John Richard Reynolds and Lou Ann Reynolds.

The complaint states that on August 10, 2014 an impaired Ryan Anderson, 29, used the ride sharing app to request a driver to take him home, and that Okoh agreed to the transportation.

The suit also alleges Uber advertises itself as a company that offers transportation for inebriated passengers.

Okoh apparently witnessed signs of Ryan being extremely intoxicated, including not walking steadily, being confused and incoherent, and having a slow and slurred speech, the complaint added.

The complaint alleges that Okoh "stopped the car and ejected" Ryan from the vehicle before reaching his home.

"Ryan had not done anything that reasonably could have been perceived as a threat to Okoh's safety," the complaint states.

Furthermore, the claim states that Okoh admitted to leaving Ryan in a "bad," "rough" and "dangerous" area-allegedly unsafe for people to walk around after dark-and that Okoh knew he would not be able to get home from the area in his intoxicated state.

A confused and scared Ryan then called his mother, the plaintiffs state. A short time later Ryan, who had no criminal record, mistakenly wandered into the Reynolds' home-apparently mistaking it for his own, according to the lawsuit-at East Third Street and Gladys Avenue.

He then began arguing with John Reynolds, who went to get his gun in an effort to scare Ryan. During the altercation, John Reynolds accidentally shot Ryan, the suit states. John and Lou Ann Reynolds knew that Anderson was not a threat to them, the suit claims.

According to a previously-issued press release from the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD), Ryan allegedly scaled a wall to gain access into the backyard, broke a window, and proceeded to steal items from the house before John Reynolds shot him multiple times.

Officers responded to the location at about 2:30AM on a Sunday. The incident-which was reported as a burglary in progress-took place near Ryan's residence at Newport Avenue and Third Street.

Ryan was pronounced dead at the scene. Police found personal property belonging to the Reynolds' on him, according to the LBPD.

The Seattle-to-Long Beach transplant had left V Room at Fourth and Alamitos alone shortly before 2:00AM, according to longtime friend Jay Diebel. Police have not confirmed this information.

In interviews shortly after the incident, friends described Ryan as a pacifist and "never confrontational."

"I am not mad at someone protecting themselves and their home-but [Ryan] wasn't a burglar," Diebel said. "He was a good kid. Always funny, always a good remark&#8230; But just someone who would never break into someone's house. He didn't need that."

"With his beanie and beard and [being] drunk-yeah, of course he'd look suspect," said Diebel. "Anyone would [look suspect] in a house that wasn't theirs&#8230; I just don't want this becoming a conversation about the rising crime in the area because that's not what this is. It was a freak accident."

The relationship between the Reynolds was unclear in the suit. The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

An Uber representative did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment. The Reynolds could not be reached for comment.

_Above, left: file photo._


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

I doubt that they will get anything from the driver. It is likely that he has nothing to take except for the beat-up Camry that he is driving. It would cost the plaintiffs more to seize it than what they would get from selling it.

Uber will offer a fast settlement to make it go away. It will de-activate the driver, if it has not done so, already.

I do not know what will happen to the resident, as I am not familiar with California Law on the subject.


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

The driver is in no way responsable for the altercation outside of his vehicle.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

onefuctubersheep said:


> The driver is in no way responsable for the altercation outside of his vehicle.


No, he isn't.

The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).

Clearly he had a problem with the passenger so he ejected the passenger.

He should have dropped off the passenger at a police station, to be in a holding tank, until the passenger (Ryan) sobered up--if he did not feel comfortable dropping Ryan at point B as requested.

But the fact that he (Ryan) was dropped off in the middle of nowhere (so to speak, instead of his destination) was wrong.

Uber should also have strong values in place for their contract workers, that and they have more $$ than the driver which is why I believe they're brought into the (civil?) suit.

Ultimately Uber should have guidelines already in place (if they haven't) of what should be done in case xyz happens. If they already have, clearly it's not conveyed to the drivers clearly or upheld if so.

Either way, Ryan shouldn't have been dropped off in a destination other than what he placed in, esp if he's drunk intoxicated and by himself.

It's a shame that he lost his life because of that.


----------



## ChicagoHeat12 (May 6, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> ...


The victim should also bear a good share of the blame. No one forced him into an inebriated mess. His condition was the catalyst for the chain of events that ultimately lead to his death.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

ChicagoHeat12 said:


> The victim should also bear a good share of the blame. No one forced him into an inebriated mess. His condition was the catalyst for the chain of events that ultimately lead to his death.


Depends on the situation but he got drunk. He was smart enough to get an uber home.

he didn't attempt to drive himself
He didn't attempt to walk ( and potentially walk in front of a car accidently )

So in this case, no.

He was paying for a ride home because he's that inebriated.

The driver should have known better. If he wasn't comfortable with a drunk driver, cancel when he arrived.. Let another driver handle it.

If at any time he felt threatened, a police station is 10x better than leaving him in the middle of nowhere, particularly since the article quoted the driver to knowing it's not a "safe" neighborhood


----------



## ChicagoHeat12 (May 6, 2015)

So if the driver took the passenger to his address but the inebriated mess(as a result of his own drinking) broke into the next door neighbor's house and got himself shot, would you still blame the driver? No. You wouldn't. At some point personal accountably has to be acknowledged and be considered a contributing factor.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

ChicagoHeat12 said:


> So if the driver took the passenger to his address but the inebriated mess(as a result of his own drinking) broke into the next door neighbor's house and got himself shot, would you still blame the driver? No. You wouldn't. At some point personal accountably has to be acknowledged and be considered a contributing factor.


Yes, if he took the passenger to the address, I wouldn't hold him accountable and by the by. Wouldn't his neighbor recognize him?

But that's that.

This is 1) he dropped the passenger off in an unknown spot to the passenger which 2) he admitted is a bad neighborhood

Tell me. If you saw someone drunk on the street passed out, even if you don't want to help take the person to somewhere safe, wouldn't you call the police?

And it takes 2 seconds to dial police and I'm pretty sure a few minutes for cops to arrive if he didn't want to waste gas and mile to the police station.

Go ahead and give me other examples to try and put the blame on the passenger instead of the driver (partial because uber was also in the suit).

Still doesn't change what actually happened and the fact that if you ever find yourself (never say never) that drunk and by yourself, I hope you would be able to find a kinder uber driver than the one in the story.


----------



## RightTurnClyde (Dec 9, 2015)

Definitely an unfortunate story. To me, irregardless of the what, when, where, and why; if at any point in a trip I become concerned for my own safety... YOUR OUT right then and there, I don't care where it is! After this point I might get the law involved with a phone call, as I do see the moral point in doing so in certain instances. That being said, no one will ever convince me that I or anyone else should be "legally obligated" to assist any individual who made me feel threatened and afraid; or held responsible for their actions afterwards. Act up in a good area, get ejected in a good area. Act up in a bad area, get ejected in a bad area; simple...


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

When you're using the app, as a driver, and you accept the fare, you have a obligation to get the passenger from point A to point B. You do so and whatever happens outside of B is not your fault. 

If you stop at an unknown location to the passenger, you do have some fault in it. Why drop off at a shady neighborhood? Why not drop off at the cops? Particularly if you feel threatened. Call the cops ASAP. Stop the car. Call the cops.

I don't understand if the driver felt so threatened why he wouldn't want the passenger thrown in jail or at least scared shietless by the possibility of being cuffed and thrown in jail.

If anything, I bet the driver just was irritated by the passenger's drunken antics and thought to himself; whatever the f and just kicked him out of the vehicle and yeah it's a rough neighborhood but the a-hole deserves it.

That's until the a-hole gets killed. Did the driver want that to happen? No. Did he think throughly, with his head instead of his emotions? No.


----------



## ChicagoHeat12 (May 6, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> When you're using the app, as a driver, and you accept the fare, you have a obligation to get the passenger from point A to point B. You do so and whatever happens outside of B is not your fault.
> 
> If you stop at an unknown location to the passenger, you do have some fault in it. Why drop off at a shady neighborhood? Why not drop off at the cops? Particularly if you feel threatened. Call the cops ASAP. Stop the car. Call the cops.
> 
> ...


----------



## ChicagoHeat12 (May 6, 2015)

You are still missing the point. The driver dropping him off in a shady neighborhood did not cause his death. The dude breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night did. You are looking for some moral high road to take the driver to task for not doing something that you'd do. That's not enough to find the driver guilty. You're blaming everyone and everything peripheral to the event instead of blaming the direct action that caused the event,


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> When you're using the app, as a driver, and you accept the fare, you have a obligation to get the passenger from point A to point B. You do so and whatever happens outside of B is not your fault.
> 
> If you stop at an unknown location to the passenger, you do have some fault in it. Why drop off at a shady neighborhood? Why not drop off at the cops? Particularly if you feel threatened. Call the cops ASAP. Stop the car. Call the cops.
> 
> ...


Once you exit the vehicle, and I slide the slider to end the trip, I have no further obligation to you.


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

I wonder if Uber will provide attorney for the driver. There are so many situations where the driver has to make decisions and could be put in legal jeopardy. If that pax was that drunk and not causing problems there's a high probability he gets to his destination. If he was acting up then you have to realize that drivers have no managerial support in these instances and cannot rely on anyone. The least Uber could do is provide an attorney.


----------



## Oc_DriverX (Apr 29, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> Clearly he had a problem with the passenger so he ejected the passenger.


His parents do not have any idea why he was ejected from the car. At this point, only the driver knows this. If the driver feels that he is in danger or the passenger is putting his vehicle in danger, then the driver has the right to ask the passenger to leave the car. (*I hope you are not suggesting that once the trip has started that the driver has not right to eject a passenger from his own car!*) Why should the driver continue to put himself in danger by continuing to transport the passenger? While a public lit place might have been a better drop off point, the onus is on the passenger to behave properly and not act in a manner that gets him tossed. It is tragic that this man died. R.I.P.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Oc_DriverX said:


> His parents do not have any idea why he was ejected from the car. At this point, only the driver knows this. If the driver feels that he is in danger or the passenger is putting his vehicle in danger, then the driver has the right to ask the passenger to leave the car. (*I hope you are not suggesting that once the trip has started that the driver has not right to eject a passenger from his own car!*) Why should the driver continue to put himself in danger by continuing to transport the passenger? While a public lit place might have been a better drop off point, the onus is on the passenger to behave properly and not act in a manner that gets him tossed. It is tragic that this man died. R.I.P.


rawr

i feel like i'm saying the same shiet over and over but last time. preface, by you i mean that driver.

if you don't feel comfortable because a passenger is drunk off their high horse you have EVERY right to cancel the request THERE and then.

you can't tell me the passenger broke out a forty and chugged it on down with a few others in the backseat halfway and that's why.

if you decide for whatever reason to ACCEPT the fare even though he is unquestionably drunk--than you are signing up for, or "taking on" the welfare of the passenger.

The Q is, is the driver responsible for the passenger once the passenger leaves the vehicle? Generally no.

Is the driver responsible or partly so, if the DRIVER notices that the passenger is drunk, and drops the passenger off in a location that the passenger didn't agree to and something happens because the DRIVER CHOSE to drop off the passenger (obviously drunk) in a shady neighborhood?

You all are (for the most part) uber drivers so when you evaluate this situation obviously you're putting yourself in the uber drivers' shoes and you're worried that if something like this gets tried and found guilty or liable, what that would mean to you as a driver, i get it.

it still doesn't change the fact that whether you're a driver, or a fellow pedestrian..wouldn't the norm be either to A) call the cops or B) ignore the drunk but NOT steer the drunk towards an unfavorable outcome?

because the driver didn't a) call the cops or b) reject the fare but instead c) dropped off the passenger in a shady neighborhood.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Yes, if he took the passenger to the address, I wouldn't hold him accountable and by the by. Wouldn't his neighbor recognize him?
> 
> But that's that.
> 
> ...


A filing of a civil suit does not make the law.


sellkatsell44 said:


> rawr
> 
> i feel like i'm saying the same shiet over and over but last time. preface, by you i mean that driver.
> 
> ...


None of this is stated in the civil contract that is presented to either the PAX or the driver. You don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

DexNex said:


> A filing of a civil suit does not make the law.
> 
> None of this is stated in the civil contract that is presented to either the PAX or the driver. You don't know what you are talking about.


i'm not quoting the contract.

never did and I apologize if that was where the confusion is.

doesn't change the fact that if the driver really felt uncomfortable/threatened by the fact that the passenger is drunk, he should have not picked up the fare.

if he picked up the fare, he should have completed it as agreed upon.

if at any time he felt threatened during the fare, he should have called the cops.

what is so difficult about that?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Yes, if he took the passenger to the address, I wouldn't hold him accountable and by the by. Wouldn't his neighbor recognize him?
> 
> But that's that.
> 
> ...


Some of us will never be in that situation because we don't GET so wasted we don't know where we are. I would argue that it's responsible to call an uber when you have had a couple of drinks and shouldn't drive, but getting THAT drunk is not responsible under any circumstances. I honestly believe far more people are getting MORE drunk than they would in the past because of uber. Drunk driving may be down, but DRUNKENNESS is up.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis and you're totally entitled to your opinion. you don't think you'll ever be in that situation and i hope not, but again, i wouldn't say never because...well, you never know. i never thought i would get cancer but what do you know. I also never thought i'd call the cops on someone i know but i was threatened and I did.

+ yes, uber does give folks more freedom to get wasted, its awesome when no one in my group wants to be the DD.

i find it interesting that most folks here tend to talk about what's morally right (seems to revolve around tipping mostly) yet in this situation no one seems to think there is a moral obligation to make sure the passenger was safe.

what do you guys think cops are for? call them. there is even a non-emergency line so you don't tie up 911 if you don't think it is THAT big of a deal, but big enough that you're about to boot someone into an unsafe neighborhood.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> rawr
> 
> i feel like i'm saying the same shiet over and over but last time. preface, by you i mean that driver.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, what defines a "shady" neighborhood? One uber doesn't expect us to pick up pax?

Oh, wait. That doesn't work.

So the DRIVER should decide a neighborhood is too "shady" to dump a pax, (because it's what? Poor? Black?) but he is still expected (required if trying to keep up his acceptance, completed trips, trips per hour or whatever in order to not get deactivated and/or get a guarantee) to pick up in said neighborhood?

Let me know where this map of "shady" neighborhoods is.

FYI there are many places on my town that the average resident doesn't know are shady. If they became an uber driver tomorrow they would need said map to guide them.

Incidentally this is one way in which being an uber driver is more dangerous than a taxi. Taxi drivers exchange info and experience. New uber drivers go out for the most part knowing nothing about much of the area they work in.

Look up Sunnyside houston crime rate if you're not familiar with houston. Then come here and ask 10 new uber drivers where it is and what they know about it. Would they call it "shady"?

The neighborhood was not the issue.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Fuzzyelvis and you're totally entitled to your opinion. you don't think you'll ever be in that situation and i hope not, but again, i wouldn't say never because...well, you never know. i never thought i would get cancer but what do you know. I also never thought i'd call the cops on someone i know but i was threatened and I did.
> 
> + yes, uber does give folks more freedom to get wasted, its awesome when no one in my group wants to be the DD.
> 
> ...


I don't drink so for me unless I'm kidnapped and force fed booze it is NOT going to happen. But even for many folks who DO drink they will NOT allow themselves to get as drunk as this guy was.
I don't know if the driver felt threatened by him. If he did IMHO he has NO duty moral or otherwise to do anything to help him. I'm female, so maybe I'm more sympathetic to that side of things.

I had a very drunk pax tell me "You're a f****** horrible uber, I'm gonna get out and get another f****** uber right now!"

He changed his mind when I pulled over and luckily for him calmed down. Was it a safe neighborhood? Yes, but had it not been I wouldn't have cared if he hadn't immediately changed his tune.

If there is a moral here it's don't get so drunk you're incapacitated and don't act like a d***. I've carried plenty of very drunk, perfectly nice people. If you're not one of them then stay sober. Or call your family to take care of your drunken ass, not a stranger who is not going to put up with your crap.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis I'm female so I don't know what that has to do with anything??

Shady or bad is whatever the driver thinks because that's what HE admitted to

And everything else was kinda long winded. I don't think uber driving is for everyone and to steal a page from your book of "what is shady" what is too drunk??

Maybe he had a less level of tolerant than you showed or maybe he overreacted or maybe he was perfectly right to feel threatened, who knows.

End of the day the simple fact remains which I already went over and if you drive for uber you have a phone you can dial the police


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> ...


He lost his life because he had NO self control, got drunk, climbed over a wall, BROKE a window and confronted the homeowner.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

observer said:


> He lost his life because he had NO self control, got drunk, climbed over a wall, BROKE a window and confronted the homeowner.


Um, your def of no self control is really someone who was drunk and act in a way that they otherwise wouldn't when they're sober, that has been established.

If he was dropped off at his destination he probably would have climbed over his own wall, broke into his own house by breaking the window and crashed asleep

Instead of being confronted by a homeowner with a gun

But the passenger was dropped off in an area where the driver himself said was unsafe and he didn't know where he was

Come again??


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Um, your def of no self control is really someone who was drunk and act in a way that they otherwise wouldn't when they're sober, that has been established.
> 
> If he was dropped off at his destination he probably would have climbed over his own wall, broke into his own house by breaking the window and crashed asleep
> 
> ...


Actually, no. The driver may not have known this, but that is a pretty safe neighborhood.

The neighborhood he was dropped off in was in no way, shady or unsafe.

The neighborhood has ZERO to do with the situation he got himself into.

Trust me I have lived in Long Beach almost 50 years and I go by this spot almost daily.

I can think of a hundred areas more dangerous than Third and Gladys.

This situation happened because he jumped a fence and broke into a home.
He very likely would have been shot in any home, anywhere if he had broken in and confronted the homeowner.

The neighborhood had nothing to do with his getting shot.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Anywhere but his own home observer

I don't think anything I can say will change your mind and

I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise (even if you are well versed with the area currently) and I'm in awe that every household has a gun there? No households in my neighborhood has guns except a handful of enthusiasts. Generally it's the gang bangers (in other spaces) that have guns. But not every household, not even majority of households and we just had a shooting on Bart.


----------



## driveLA (Aug 15, 2014)

anybody stupid enough to be that intoxicated that they are getting kicked out of ubers and going into other people's houses is bottom of the food chain and probably would die doing other stupid shit

tolerating these losers is not your problem

my own well being is more important than some intoxicated piece of shit

sue me


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Lol, I seriously doubt this homeowner was a gang banger.

Gangbangers don't generally own homes, especially homes that start at 700K. I know three people that live near this area, none are gangbangers.

But, yes, you are correct, if he would have been breaking into homes, say by 11th and MLK, the likelyhood of him getting shot is probably higher.










Been by here four times since earlier post.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

I'm not saying that area is gangbangers I'm saying in my area there are gangbangers and property value is about that too. If you want a nicer area with hidden gangbangers (meaning not so obvious) eg sunset or Richmond district it will set you back a mil at least (don't be fooled by listings, the bidding always push it over 1 mil).

In all seriousness though, if the driver said it was bad, than why did he drop the passenger off there?

And definition of what's "bad or shady" is relative I admit

But than what is so hard about dialing for a service you're paying through the roof for anyways? Not sure about your neck of the woods but here, cops get 80-90k starting


----------



## THIRDEYE (Jul 2, 2015)

observer said:


> Actually, no. The driver may not have known this, but that is a pretty safe neighborhood.
> 
> The neighborhood he was dropped off in was in no way, shady or unsafe.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I live 3 blocks from the bar that the pax was at and I'm very familiar with the area. 

The V-Room is a dive bar and every pax I've picked up from there was completely inebriated and more obnoxious than the average drunk. I now ignore all requests from this bar. 
The bar the pax was at is only 1.4 miles from where the pax was dropped off, 0.3 miles more and he's home. How bad do you have to be as a pax that your driver can't tolerate your nonsense for another 20 seconds? Even so, that's only a 2-3 minute walk home. The area is largely made up of retired LB residents that have lived there for decades. 
I don't get drunk often, but I'll say from personal experience 2 weeks ago... I got to the point where I woke up the next day and didn't remember how I got home. I talked to my friend and apparently I walked home from the bar, which is 1 mile away. But guess what, I did not climb a gate, break into someone's house, and stuff items into my pockets. 
No parents should have to bury their children, but the money grab and finger pointing won't fix anything.


----------



## select_this (Nov 3, 2015)

Anyone that says that the driver should have not taken the fare if he felt uncomfortable has never had a bad ride. Im sure he knew that the pax was drunk but no way could he know how the pax was going to act as a result. Given the amount of assholes attacking drivers recently, we dont know if the pax is going to be one of these aholes! We are contractors and it is our car and our safety that we must protect. No way in hell should he be held responsible for what someone that is too drunk does, especially breaking into someones home after climbing a wall and breaking a window! I dont care how drunk you get you know this is NOT YOUR house you are going into. He could have been dropped off in any neighborhood and broken into someones house and got shot.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> I'm not saying that area is gangbangers I'm saying in my area there are gangbangers and property value is about that too. If you want a nicer area with hidden gangbangers (meaning not so obvious) eg sunset or Richmond district it will set you back a mil at least (don't be fooled by listings, the bidding always push it over 1 mil).
> 
> In all seriousness though, if the driver said it was bad, than why did he drop the passenger off there?
> 
> ...


Yea, 700K doesn't get you much in SF. I worked in The City for eight years, it was much cheaper for me to commute from LAX, three days a week, than actually live there.

I knew quite a few cops in SF, they made pretty good money but virtually all of them lived in Vallejo, Napa, Castro Valley, Stockton etc.

Cops here start out in mid 50Ks, I believe.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Depends on the situation but he got drunk. He was smart enough to get an uber home.
> t.
> 
> If at any time he felt threatened, a police station is 10x better than leaving him in the middle of nowhere, particularly since the article quoted the driver to knowing it's not a "safe" neighborhood


as if when we are getting harrassed and attacked by a drunk driver a police station is always right there? don't tell pax to get out, just endure the beating until you magically find a safe spot for him?



sellkatsell44 said:


> If you stop at an unknown location to the passenger, you do have some fault in it. Why drop off at a shady neighborhood? Why not drop off at the cops? Particularly if you feel threatened. Call the cops ASAP. Stop the car. Call the cops.No.


Again, you have an issue with a belligerent pax, the answer is to stay in a confined location with the pax instead of putting him out. check.....


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> If he wasn't comfortable with a drunk driver, cancel when he arrived.. Let another driver handle it. If at any time he felt threatened, a police station is 10x better than leaving him in the middle of nowhere, particularly since the article quoted the driver to knowing it's not a "safe" neighborhood


Agreed. If the driver felt uncomfortable from the beginning, then he should have cancelled the trip. If driver felt uncomfortable during the trip, then he should have either gone to police station, summoned the police or taken the person to hospital. Simply abandoning a person who was clearly intoxicated so much that he was either a danger to himself or others was negligent on the part of the driver.


----------



## THIRDEYE (Jul 2, 2015)

It's easy to say all this in hindsight... but let's be realistic.
First, some of you guys are clueless with saying the driver should have taken the pax to the police station or hospital. From the bar, the police station is 1 mile west, the hospital is 0.5 miles north, and the pax was dropped off 1.4 miles east. Without a dash cam, we're all speculating what exactly happened in the car that caused the driver to eject the pax with only 0.3 miles left to go. Whatever the reason, it's unreasonable to say the driver should've backtracked 2.4 miles west to the police station.
Second, how many times are you able to make an informed decision to cancel or accept a ride before it already starts. Low pax rating or pax calls to demand you hurry up are the few cases whether we know to skip the ride. Otherwise, the pax is already in the car and it's a toss up whether the pax is a friendly drunk or violent drunk. If this pax is the latter type of drunk, how do you think it'd go if the driver suddenly turned the car around, drove towards the police station, orders the pax out of the car? Better to end it right then and there and let the pax order another Uber or walk the rest of the way home.
I prefer to look at the chain of events that led to this tragedy to determine who is responsible. Obviously, first is the pax who decided to get this inebriated. Second, perhaps the bar should have limited the drinks served. Third, the pax again for his behavior that led to him being kicked out of the Uber. Fourth, the pax for jumping the wall, breaking into the house, and being found with the homeowner's items in his pockets.
Have any of you ever thought... if I eject this drunk pax out of my car right now, he might burglarize a home and get himself killed? I bet this unlikely scenario has never crossed any of our minds. The fact of whether the neighborhood was safe or unsafe did not play a role in his death. He could have "mistakenly" entered another person's home if he was dropped off at his destination.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

THIRDEYE said:


> Second, how many times are you able to make an informed decision to cancel or accept a ride before it already starts. Low pax rating or pax calls to demand you hurry up are the few cases whether we know to skip the ride. Otherwise, the pax is already in the car and it's a toss up whether the pax is a friendly drunk or violent drunk.


Add to that the issues around cancellation rate, acceptance rate etc. and a driver may well pick up a pax they would prefer not to. That part is on uber.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Fuzzyelvis I'm female so I don't know what that has to do with anything??
> 
> Shady or bad is whatever the driver thinks because that's what HE admitted to
> 
> ...


My point is expecting uber drivers to gauge every neighborhood and decide if it's safe is unfair, especially when said neighborhood is considered ok to pick up in.

As far as "too drunk" well I think if you're at the point you're breaking into someone's house thinking you live there you're probably past the threshold.


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> My point is expecting uber drivers to gauge every neighborhood and decide if it's safe is unfair, especially when said neighborhood is considered ok to pick up in.
> 
> As far as "too drunk" well I think if you're at the point you're breaking into someone's house thinking you live there you're probably past the threshold.


You're right. And dropping off in nice areas won't prevent you from being shot if you try breaking into their home. I'm not your babysitter, I'm not your therapist, and I'm not your punching bag.


----------



## forqalso (Jun 1, 2015)

I don't know what the pax's actions were inside the car, but if they were anything close to the why he acted when he broke into a stranger's house and burglarized it, I would have kicked him out, too. All we have right now is the sad parents account of what happened, which is based on what their drunk so told them before he broke into the Reynolds' home. Of course the drunk would tell his parents that he was guiltless and there was no reason for the ejection.


----------



## Emp9 (Apr 9, 2015)

The article doesn't state that the pax behavior got him ejected. Let's sue everyone instead of taking responsibility for ones actions. He also was combative with the home owner and got shot. If I'm the judge case dismissed.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Depends on the situation but he got drunk. He was smart enough to get an uber home.
> 
> he didn't attempt to drive himself
> He didn't attempt to walk ( and potentially walk in front of a car accidently )
> ...


Yeah but the argument is that Uber penalizes the driver for canceling trips and not taking drunk passengers, so effectively they are forcing drivers into dangerous situations with drunks. Uber has to eliminate all ratings and tracking of cancellation and acceptance rates for the drivers to be actual independent contractors. Full disclosure of the trip destination information is also that must also be given to a private contractor. They just lost an appeal in California and the fine was increased so its just a matter of time before uber collapses under the weight of the law. Every lawyer who looks at it says they can't win the employee battle with current operations. So expect regulation of the industry soon, the heavier handed the better because real data will be used and factors like a living wage will be accounted for.


----------



## rocksteady (Mar 19, 2015)

What a load of crap. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Why don't they sue the seller of the alcohol and the maker of the alcohol as well for killing their stupid kid? How about the government while they're at it for allowing the alcohol to be sold? If a drunk driver, drunk rapist, or drunk murderer is held accountable for his/her actions then this drunk is responsible for his own negligence. None of the defendants broke into the house with him or even told him to(which even then would not put them at fault for his actions). If he called his Mommy all scared, why didn't she come pick him up? I don't think this suit has a chance and I hope none of the defendants settle.

"He was a good kid." He was a 29 year-old fuggin adult. Not some naive child.


----------



## Seastriper (Jul 1, 2015)

I have kicked passengers out, dropped off in a public location (convenience store)...


----------



## AdmiralSnackbar1 (Jan 12, 2016)

It's a shame that somebody had to loose a life in this situation. Most people here are quick to judge that the driver is in fault here. What if it was the driver that lost his life by getting a beating from the passenger? I used to tell my passengers to behave like it's their own car and at the end of the day I want to be able to put my family in the same seat you sat. It is not a taxi or what ever ride you think you can do what ever you want, it's a personal vehicle and if you misbehave, you are out no matter if it a good or bad area so think of that before you start acting up. The point here is the passenger had an obligation to make sure he is safe after all that drinking and fun was done. There shouldn't be a lawsuit to the driver here if the passenger was acting up and that is why I like in and outside driving cams.


----------



## rocksteady (Mar 19, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> ...


No, there is no contractural agreement that states the driver must deliver the rider to to the "point B" of the riders choosing. Once the trip is ended, the payment is ended as well. At that point, there is no further obligation. The driver is not accountable for the riders actions after the ride has been ended. If the rider felt he had a grievance, his only course of action would have been to submit a complaint to Uber. The rider was not an unaccountable minor. He was an accountable adult that chose to exercise his right as an adult to drink, his actions are only the fault of his own. Sad that it happened but it's the same as if a drunk walked out into freeway traffic and got killed. The driver/s who hit him/her would not be at fault, nor the municipality who controls the road for not drunk proofing the road. It's the drunks own damn fault.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

rocksteady I never said there was a *contractural *agreement and the trip is ended because the *driver choose to end it
*
But you're right, the driver is with *sound mind and can make decisions without being under the influence of substance

Whether as the passenger cannot.

I've stated all along that if, the driver felt it was not a fare he could make safely than hit the cancel fare button (don't y'all love doing that?)

And if, the driver felt halfway through the fare that he didn't feel safe he should call the cops ASAP (isnt that what you do anytime you feel unsafe?)

And if, the driver didn't feel threatened enough that he felt he needed to call the cops then he should have "sucked it up and put his big boy pants" (as I've seen others here say but in different reference) and finish the trip.

The passenger didn't ask to be dropped off at that location

The passenger was drunk and we all know when you're drunk you aren't yourself

There's no excuse

And surprisingly no one feels like this is "morally" the right thing to do.
*


----------



## UberProphet? (Dec 24, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> rocksteady
> *
> The passenger was drunk and we all know when you're drunk you aren't yourself*


Being drunk doesn't change you, it reveals you.


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

http://lbpost.com/news/2000007945-a...meowner-says-uber-needs-new-safety-procedures

Update


----------



## forkedover (Oct 26, 2014)

Bottom line is an adult got black out drunk and his parents want to profit from his death but not share ANY responsibility.

I have had numerous people get into the car apparently coherent only to start punching the back of my seat, start babbling incoherently profanity or throwing up. I've also had clear headed people fighting in the car and kicked them out exactly where they started fighting, IDGAF where that is, if they don't stop - they get out, period.

I've also dragged people out of the street that just got there ass kicked even though they we flashing a knife when drunk and I've carried drunk gay guys into there homes and made sure they laid down while they try to hit on me after seeing them nearly brain themselves on exit of the vehicle.

No driver working or person outside knows what any other driver goes through or experiences, but the police called the p8x a burglar and thats enough, so it sounds like he had the right idea kicking him out, to bad someone had to shoot him - but maybe his life served as an example to everyone else of what not to do.


----------



## Vox Rationis (Jan 10, 2016)

forkedover said:


> Bottom line is an adult got black out drunk and his parents want to profit from his death but not share ANY responsibility.
> 
> I have had numerous people get into the car apparently coherent only to start punching the back of my seat, start babbling incoherently profanity or throwing up. I've also had clear headed people fighting in the car and kicked them out exactly where they started fighting, IDGAF where that is, if they don't stop - they get out, period.
> 
> ...


Seriously, man, cheers. Great stuff.


----------



## howo3579 (Dec 8, 2015)

As an independent contractor, you can terminate the ride as you wish. If he drops the pax off on a highway and he got run over by car, Uber driver is at fault. But he dropped him off in a neighborhood which i'm sure there's sidewalk. I don't care how you define safe or unsafe neighborhood. The pax was not in danger until someone mug him and that's not driver's fault either if that happened. Breaking in someone's house has nothing to do with the location the driver dropped him off. He can be dropped off in a gated community and still get shot inside of a multi-million dollar house. At best, the parents can only get his fare refunded by the driver.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SlowBoat said:


> http://lbpost.com/news/2000007945-a...meowner-says-uber-needs-new-safety-procedures
> 
> Update


Maybe I'm stereotyping or being a little harsh, guy looks like a bum in his pic. Lives with mommy and daddy. Just got a "new" photography job. Drinks himself to the point of being out of control.

If he broke in my house I would not have shot him, (I don't own a gun). But I would most definitely have given him the whooping of his life.


----------



## Oc_DriverX (Apr 29, 2014)

SlowBoat said:


> http://lbpost.com/news/2000007945-a...meowner-says-uber-needs-new-safety-procedures
> 
> Update


All the family's lawyer has is hearsay at best, or outright speculation.


----------



## rocksteady (Mar 19, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Yes, if he took the passenger to the address, I wouldn't hold him accountable and by the by. Wouldn't his neighbor recognize him?
> 
> But that's that.
> 
> ...


Your argument is a moral one and not a legal one. You may think that what the driver did was "not right" but that doesn't mean they are legally at fault for the rider's unfortunate actions post-ride. That would be ridiculous. He supposedly called his Mommy because he was scared. Had he just stood there and waited for his Mommy to come pick him up, he'd be alive. The driver did not coerce the rider to brake into a house and get into a confrontation with the owner.

It's amazing to me that any sensible person would think the driver is legally at fault for the actions of an adult no matter what state they're in. You may feel you have a moral obligation to be your "brother's keeper" but in this case the law does not protect those same nanny values.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

rocksteady partly

But aren't most drivers here arguing for what is morally right?

Regardless what I say majority won't listen because majority is drivers and it hits home for you guys, the fact that a driver can be legally responsible so I understand the bias


----------



## rocksteady (Mar 19, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> rocksteady I never said there was a *contractural *agreement and the trip is ended because the *driver choose to end it
> *
> But you're right, the driver is with *sound mind and can make decisions without being under the influence of substance
> 
> ...


There are other reasons to end a ride besides feeling safe. Outside of discrimination covered by law, the driver is acting within their rights. Drunkenness is not a protected class. Drunkenness will not hold up in court. Can you imagine the absurdity of a drunk driver killing somebody and his defense is "well, I was drunk. I was not of "sound mind." The person I hit and killed wasn't drunk and was of "sound mind" and so they should have swerved out of the way!" Neither are bystanders under a legal obligation to protect a drunk from themselves except in limited situations like a bar serving a patron who has obviously had too much.. This is not one of those cases.

Here, most are arguing the legal case. You are arguing a moral one that is not in alignment with the law. Since the article is about a legal case, a moral argument is non-sensical. It's okay to let your feelz be your guide, but no need to waste your time making an argument about apples when the topic is about oranges.


----------



## SECOTIME (Sep 18, 2015)

Lol everyone's suing the shit out of Uber..everyday there is a new one and I'm sure many we don't hear about.

Lol


----------



## rocksteady (Mar 19, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> rocksteady partly
> 
> But aren't most drivers here arguing for what is morally right?
> 
> Regardless what I say majority won't listen because majority is drivers and it hits home for you guys, the fact that a driver can be legally responsible so I understand the bias


funny. More of the same rhetorical spinning, absent of facts--pure conjecture. Simply stating it doesn't mean it's right. No elaboration as to how the driver can legally be held responsible for the actions of an adult who was not legally in his care, breaking and entering, resulting in the drunk doofus getting killed, because the driver dropped him off in that area before hand. It's insane that anybody would defend such a stance.

Or maybe regardless of what the majority says, your mind is made up because you insist on being right based purely on ego. "Nah, uh. You guys just can't handle that I'm right!" is the argument of a fifth grader.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

rocksteady said:


> funny. More of the same rhetorical spinning, absent of facts--pure conjecture. Simply stating it doesn't mean it's right. No elaboration as to how the driver can legally be held responsible for the actions of an adult who was not legally in his care, breaking and entering, resulting in the drunk doofus getting killed, because the driver dropped him off in that area before hand. It's insane that anybody would defend such a stance.
> 
> Or maybe regardless of what the majority says, your mind is made up because you insist on being right based purely on ego. "Nah, uh. You guys just can't handle that I'm right!" is the argument of a fifth grader.


no, it is not just a simple statement.

it IS a matter of fact.

do we even have to get this far if the driver simply canceled the ride?

DRIVER DID NOT.

did we even have to get this far if the the driver had called the cops AFTER kicking the passenger out of the car?

DRIVER DID NOT.

Driver did not even HAVE TO WAIT. cops generally are pretty fast and if they aren't that fast, well, hey, at least the driver called and said, I had a drunken passenger and I felt my life is in danger so I kicked him out of my car EVEN THOUGH THE RIDE WASN'T FINISHED, ya'll might wanna go grab him because unfortunately its night time and the neighborhood (IN THE DRIVER'S WORDS) isn't safe.

i get that you have "your point of view"

But just because YOU feel strongly as well, doesn't mean your point trumps everyone elses' and just because i'm willing to say "agree to disagree" doesn't mean that i'm saying "nah! you guys just can't handle that i'm right!" argument of a "fifth grader".


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> rocksteady I never said there was a contractural agreement and the trip is ended because the driver choose to end it
> 
> But you're right, the driver is with sound mind and can make decisions without being under the influence of substance
> 
> Whether as the passenger cannot.


Getting drunk was the passenger's decision, not the driver's.



sellkatsell44 said:


> I've stated all along that if, the driver felt it was not a fare he could make safely than hit the cancel fare button (don't y'all love doing that?)


Umm... no... actually, I don't like driving to a location, wasting gas and time, and ending up with no fare. Seems like you have an axe to grind here.



sellkatsell44 said:


> And if, the driver felt halfway through the fare that he didn't feel safe he should call the cops ASAP (isnt that what you do anytime you feel unsafe?)


Yes, I will call law enforcement when it is appropriate. But the first thing that I will do is attempt to put distance between me and the person/thing that is threatening me, without putting myself in further danger. This could mean ordering someone out of my vehicle, getting out of the car myself, etc. I'm not going to continue to allow someone to threaten me or my property while I call law enforcement or wait for them to arrive.



sellkatsell44 said:


> And if, the driver didn't feel threatened enough that he felt he needed to call the cops then he should have "sucked it up and put his big boy pants" (as I've seen others here say but in different reference) and finish the trip.
> The passenger didn't ask to be dropped off at that location


... and the driver probably didn't ask the passenger to engage in whatever behavior got him ejected.

People get kicked out of businesses all the time because of bad behavior. An Uber car is no different. A driver does not have to put up with a misbehaving passenger just because they are drunk. If a person misbehaves in a place of business, they should expect to get kicked out. Doesn't matter if it is an Uber, a club, a bus, or an amusement park.



sellkatsell44 said:


> The passenger was drunk and we all know when you're drunk you aren't yourself


Not sure I agree with that... but I do agree that being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for your actions. And the Uber driver didn't cause the passenger to be drunk.



sellkatsell44 said:


> There's no excuse And surprisingly no one feels like this is "morally" the right thing to do.


So if a bouncer throws a drunk person out of a club who is being obnoxious and causing problems for the staff, are they doing the "morally wrong" thing? After all, they let him inside the club. Are they obligated to let the customer cause further problems until the cops can get there? What if they kick him out and he wanders in an alley and gets robbed? Or he wanders into the street and gets run over? Is the club at fault because they didn't continue to babysit him?

Plain and simple. 29-year-old loser chose to get drunk, misbehaved and got kicked out of an Uber, and continued to make bad choices from that point on. Hope the Uber driver is counter-suing for emotional distress.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Anywhere but his own home observer
> 
> I don't think anything I can say will change your mind and
> 
> I don't think you're going to convince me otherwise (even if you are well versed with the area currently) and I'm in awe that every household has a gun there? No households in my neighborhood has guns except a handful of enthusiasts. Generally it's the gang bangers (in other spaces) that have guns. But not every household, not even majority of households and we just had a shooting on Bart.


Maybe, maybe not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-for-ohio-man-who-killed-son-he-mistook-for-intruder/


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

sellkatsell44 said:


> no, it is not just a simple statement.
> 
> it IS a matter of fact.
> 
> ...


The cops got there pretty quick after he got shot, 2 and a half minutes if I remember correctly.

If driver would have called cops to report kicking out the passenger, the response time would likely have been at least an hour.

I can tell you that from personal experience.


----------



## Novus Caesar (Dec 15, 2015)

The shady area has nothing to do with this. I live in a nice area and if someone breaks into my house I will shoot him without even asking him questions.


----------



## Novus Caesar (Dec 15, 2015)

driverco said:


> what America do you live in where police show up in minutes for drunks? They don't even respond to accidents anymore in most cities, I've never drove on nights & never would unless they added .20 a mile 7pm-7am so never had drunks but did he just drop him on a random St? I would think common sense drop him at a corner store, public place, but driver shouldn't be accountable at all


Depends where you live. Cops in my town show up in minutes even for neighbor disputes.


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

I see his death being his own fault. Sadly his actions, poor choices and acting a fool Lead to this man loosing his life. He must of done something to get kicked outa dat uber, then brake a window and start stealing stuff. Then argue with the home owner. Life was coming at this guy life a fright train


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

SECOTIME said:


> Lol everyone's suing the shit out of Uber..everyday there is a new one and I'm sure many we don't hear about.
> 
> Lol


Not only suing Uber, but suing Uber drivers. This family and the ex- Taco Bell jerk are both suing their drivers.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

SlowBoat said:


> Not only suing Uber, but suing Uber drivers. This family and the ex- Taco Bell jerk are both suing their drivers.


The driver in the Taco Bell caper is being counter-sued by the perp. IMHO, the Costa Mesa driver should have considered it a win after the dude was pepper sprayed, arrested, fired, and publicly embarrassed. Driver decided to pile-on with a lawsuit against the now-unemployed jerk. A counter-suit is not surprising, and I don't have a lot of sympathy.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

sd1303 said:


> Getting drunk was the passenger's decision, not the driver's.
> 
> Umm... no... actually, I don't like driving to a location, wasting gas and time, and ending up with no fare. Seems like you have an axe to grind here.
> 
> ...


Before the cancel fee went away I would say $5 isn't so bad with not dealing with a drunk and I'm sure if the distance was that great the driver wouldn't have accepted the ping anyways

What would you rather have on your hand? The idea that you could have done something (eg call the cops and have this person stored away in a tank until they sober up) or the idea that you let him off in an area unfamiliar to him and look, he did get hurt, not just hurt but killed.

But I guess that's bringing it back to the moral point and you're not interested in that and I could try to find cases similar to make a legal stance but then that means I REALLY have an axe to grind

Which I don't, I'm just strongly advocating on the other side because y'all stacked against the drunk passenger, who isn't innocent but damn, the driver should have called the cops.

And yes, in my neck of the woods, cops will come out ASAP

Examples--when I was five I misdialed (grandma number starts with 9) and I hung up quickly, cops showed up less than five minutes later, which sucked for my dad who was two minutes after (stepped out to grocery store around the corner).

Someone in my neighborhood called on a homeless guy that was taking shelter in an abandoned house (later got teared down and a new one built, it's a nice area but the house just got to be an eyesore) and SIX cop cars showed up, so a total of 12 cops for one homeless guy

Oh, once at work, nice area again, I don't work there anymore so I can tell you it's pac heights (google it, I believe that author Danielle steel is in the area, her servants drops off her Chanel suits to the drycleaner around the block frm us)...a homeless guy was sleeping in our front door. My manager calls the cops (nonemergency) and they show up in less then ten minute and good thing, since that man had a knife under his sleeping bag.

But hey, y'all like to have your cake and eat it too


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Novus Caesar said:


> Depends where you live. Cops in my town show up in minutes even for neighbor disputes.


I live in Sugar Land TX. Same here. One of the safest towns of its size in the country.

In Houston, on the other hand, it would probably be a wait for what on the face of it is only a public intoxication call.

Oh and he'd likely have got shot breaking in a house in either town and any neighborhood here.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

driverco said:


> what America do you live in where police show up in minutes for drunks? They don't even respond to accidents anymore in most cities, I've never drove on nights & never would unless they added .20 a mile 7pm-7am so never had drunks but did he just drop him on a random St? I would think common sense drop him at a corner store, public place, but driver shouldn't be accountable at all


I posted about my city of Sugar Land and how it IS quick here. So I won't repeat that. But here for fun is a (shown by Snopes.com to be untrue btw, but ii IS funny) story.

George Phillips of Meridian Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said no. Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available.

George said "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello. I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up.

Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips residence. Of course, the police caught the burglars red-handed. One of the policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Before the cancel fee went away I would say $5 isn't so bad with not dealing with a drunk and I'm sure if the distance was that great the driver wouldn't have accepted the ping anyways
> 
> But hey, y'all like to have your cake and eat it too


Cancel fee only applies if it a no-show for 5 minutes. You don't get anything for declining a drunken mess.

I wouldn't call driving Uber during the drunk hours as "having ones cake." Drivers put up with a lot of crap and are getting paid less and less for it.

If more people took responsibility for their actions and made good choices, the world would be a better place. Instead, we've got the parents of a drunk loser suing a driver (who is probably trying to make ends meet) because the driver didn't keep their son safe from making several stunningly bad decisions in a row, resulting in his death. To me, that's morally wrong.


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

The driver obviously felt that the passenger was a threat to the driver or the car. Uber needs some kind of panic button on the driver App where some sort of security would come and pick up passengers that are a danger to the driver but Uber is too cheap to ever do that. 
The drunk would probably have attacked police, gone for the cop's gun and gotten killed if the Uber driver dropped him off at a police station. It's unfortunate, but 99+% the passenger's fault.


----------



## Sal29 (Jul 27, 2014)

Uber needs it's own security and a panic button on the app because if the driver called the police, the police may have impounded the driver's car and arrested him for operating an illegal taxi.


----------



## Hotep31 (Jan 24, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> ...


 really drop him off at a policee station? are you kidding me?


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

sd1303 said:


> Cancel fee only applies if it a no-show for 5 minutes. You don't get anything for declining a drunken mess.
> 
> I wouldn't call driving Uber during the drunk hours as "having ones cake." Drivers put up with a lot of crap and are getting paid less and less for it.
> 
> If more people took responsibility for their actions and made good choices, the world would be a better place. Instead, we've got the parents of a drunk loser suing a driver (who is probably trying to make ends meet) because the driver didn't keep their son safe from making several stunningly bad decisions in a row, resulting in his death. To me, that's morally wrong.


I'm sure I've read about a lot of folks here who'd wait the five minutes for the cancel fee. I'm sure if he was that drunk he wouldn't have been able to read the plates anyways, and at night, it's easy to just park and wait no?



Hotep31 said:


> really drop him off at a policee station? are you kidding me?


And your point is?

I've given other options besides that but personally if someone was an a-hole to me and drunk off the high horse I wouldn't mind seeing them behind bars for a few hours.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

If I'm forced to drop a passenger off because they are being a dbag and they win the lottery, do I get a piece of that too ?

No logic at all in this lawsuit other than to try to get some money out of Uber and the driver when it's clear the plaintiff is totally at fault. We are not responsible for anything the passenger does. We are not under any sort of contract other than to transport the rider. How many times do passengers change their trips before we get started or ask us to make several stops, are we under contract to make sure that they get to each and every stop ? No.

This passenger allegedly broke into someone's house and attempted to steal things? That's the drivers fault ?

It's totally different if you serve alcohol to someone who is already drunk because you are directly contributing to furthering their alcoholic binge but simply refusing to continue transporting them when they are drunk is our choice. They're getting charged by the mile not the trip.


----------



## sd1303 (Nov 11, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> I'm sure I've read about a lot of folks here who'd wait the five minutes for the cancel fee. I'm sure if he was that drunk he wouldn't have been able to read the plates anyways, and at night, it's easy to just park and wait no?
> 
> And your point is?
> 
> I've given other options besides that but personally if someone was an a-hole to me and drunk off the high horse I wouldn't mind seeing them behind bars for a few hours.


If you make contact with the rider and decline to transport, then it is *not* a no show. Collecting a no show fee would be fraud and would likely get a driver deactivated if a complaint were filed.

Driving someone to the police station without their consent? Are you suggesting a citizen arrest? Or just a run-of-the-mill kidnapping?


----------



## Dan Dixon (Jul 10, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> No, he isn't.
> 
> The thing that may hook him is the fact that he was paid for a service (to get passenger from point A to point B).
> 
> ...


If Ryan was abusive, belligerent, or otherwise interfering with the safe operation of the vehicle, then the driver had every right to order him out of the vehicle. THE VEHICLES DON"T BELONG TO UBER, the drivers own the vehicles, they have to maintain them, and keep them clean and safe. Drivers also have to transport their families in their vehicles, so sorry, if you are being an abusive or destructive jerk, YOU WILL BE EJECTED FROM MY VEHICLE IMMEDIATELY, I don't care where we are at the time.


----------



## select_this (Nov 3, 2015)

sellkatsell44 - you cant seem to grasp the idea that the reason the pax died is he broke into someones home in the middle of the night. he could have done so many other things after he got ejected out of the car and he would still be here, but he didnt. He could have called another uber, he could have called a friend, he could have walked home, he could have had his mommy come pick him up, he could have passed out on the lawn and so on and so on, but he broke into someones home after crawling up a wall and breaking a window.

also you keep saying that we all are responding in support of the driver because we are drivers, does the fact that you are supporting the drunk pax that could not handle himself like and adult mean you are the same?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

forqalso said:


> I don't know what the pax's actions were inside the car, but if they were anything close to the why he acted when he broke into a stranger's house and burglarized it, I would have kicked him out, too. All we have right now is the sad parents account of what happened, which is based on what their drunk so told them before he broke into the Reynolds' home. Of course the drunk would tell his parents that he was guiltless and there was no reason for the ejection.


I agree with you, the driver was negligent. The driver should have documented why he ejected the passenger so there wouldn't just be one side to this story. A call to 911 would have been a good move.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Demon said:


> I agree with you, the driver was negligent. The driver should have documented why he ejected the passenger so there wouldn't just be one side to this story. A call to 911 would have been a good move.


We don't know if he documented why he ejected the pax. He may have notified Uber.

Ejecting a drunk passenger is not an emergency. Why would he call 911? I see drunks and people high on stuff every day walking down the street. Am I supposed to call 911 on every one I see?

I can almost guarantee this was not the first time the pax got drunk.

If you can't handle your ^###/&! liquor.

STOP DRINKING.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

observer said:


> We don't know if he documented why he ejected the pax. He may have notified Uber.
> 
> Ejecting a drunk passenger is not an emergency. Why would he call 911? I see drunks and people high on stuff every day walking down the street. Am I supposed to call 911 on every one I see?
> 
> ...


Those are fair points. The driver could have contacted Uber and if it wasn't an emergency why dump the passenger?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Demon said:


> Those are fair points. The driver could have contacted Uber and if it wasn't an emergency why dump the passenger?


We don't know if it was an emergency.

He may have kicked out the pax because he was about to puke.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

observer said:


> We don't know if it was an emergency.
> 
> He may have kicked out the pax because he was about to puke.


Pull over, let the guy get out & puke and drive him to the destination.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Demon said:


> Pull over, let the guy get out & puke and drive him to the destination.


Maybe, again we don't know drivers side of story.

Pax may have puked in car.

Pax may have been close to puking.

Pax may have gotten confrontational.

Pax may have hit on driver.

Pax may have asked to be dropped off there.

Pax may have....

Pax may have.....

Pax may have.....

Point is, driver is being blamed and none of us know what really happened.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

BTW, did you notice all of the above actions were initiated by the pax?


----------



## TheWhiteTiger (Sep 28, 2015)

So now...if a belligerent drunken pax gets ejected by an Uber driver and then proceeds to sexually assault a woman who was standing nearby, some of you here see some justification in holding the driver accountable?!?! This whole law suit is attempting to set a precedent in which intoxicated people are not held accountable for their actions. Can you imagine the giant can of worms that'd open? Not happening. I bet their lawyers are hoping to pressure Uber to settle. That's how civil lawyers, specially the small time bottom-feeding ones, make a living -- forcing companies/insurance to settle because the cost of a drawn out lawsuit would be higher. It's unfortunate when systems put in place to protect the truly vulnerable are abused all the time.


----------



## Uberdave2123 (Jan 18, 2016)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Before the cancel fee went away I would say $5 isn't so bad with not dealing with a drunk and I'm sure if the distance was that great the driver wouldn't have accepted the ping anyways
> 
> What would you rather have on your hand? The idea that you could have done something (eg call the cops and have this person stored away in a tank until they sober up) or the idea that you let him off in an area unfamiliar to him and look, he did get hurt, not just hurt but killed.
> 
> ...


Thank you for providing four pages displaying textbook external loci of control. Entertainment at its finest! The driver was not responsible for the actions of someone who was no longer a passenger. Period. End of story.

Drivers aren't cops, we can't order people to do things when they aren't our passengers anymore. Passengers aren't given a 100% guarantee that they will receive a ride home since drivers have the right to end trips/kick pax's out. Consequently we aren't responsible for passengers once they exit our vehicles (unless they are having an observable medical emergency). Also, just because someone calls an uber after going out by themselves and getting black out drunk doesn't make them a responsible adult. Responsible adults don't solely burden others with their safety (with no back up plans), just like mature adults don't blame others when they f*** up. Sorry to break the news.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

observer said:


> Maybe, again we don't know drivers side of story.
> 
> Pax may have puked in car.
> 
> ...


Thing is, the same could be said for both sides, so I guess none of us really knows what happened in that ride.


----------



## Kim Chi (Dec 10, 2014)

DexNex said:


> Once you exit the vehicle, and I slide the slider to end the trip, I have no further obligation to you.


Well said.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

SlowBoat said:


> *Parents of Long Beach Man Fatally Shot by Homeowner in 2014 Sue Uber, Driver, Shooter
> *
> http://lbpost.com/news/2000007913-p...fter-drunken-break-in-sue-uber-driver-shooter
> 
> ...


POST # 1/SlowBoat : Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Multiple-Hyperlinked Long Beach Post
Article. Extra Credit is due for Printing
the Entire Story for TWO Reasons:

ONE: Many Newspapers and Periodicals
only leave you with a One Paragraph
Synopsis....or $UB$CRIBE.

TWO: For those of us on a Less-than-
Unlimited Data Plan, "App Data Con-
sumption" can have a Driver/Reader
weighing Information vs. Overage Fees.

Well-Done, Sir !

Bison Admires.
Bison Inspires!


----------



## SlowBoat (Jun 26, 2015)

Credit for expanded experience goes to moderator. Thanks anyway.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> When you're using the app, as a driver, and you accept the fare, you have a obligation to get the passenger from point A to point B. You do so and whatever happens outside of B is not your fault.


Whatever happens after you end the ride anywhere is not your fault if the pax caused the ejection.

Maybe the driver was rash or, even more likely from what I have seen, the lawsuit neglected to fairly describe why he was ejected.

Regardless, he was shot for burglarising a home, not just for being in a bad neighborhood. That burglary had nothing to do with the driver.

""Ryan had not done anything that reasonably could have been perceived as a threat to Okoh's safety," the complaint states."

I don't believe the complaint. He went on to hop a wall, break into a house, have a confrontation, and burglarise.

"Furthermore, the claim states that Okoh admitted to leaving Ryan in a "bad," "rough" and "dangerous" area-allegedly unsafe for people to walk around after dark-and that Okoh knew he would not be able to get home from the area in his intoxicated state."

It makes no difference. If he caused the ejection, that's on him.


----------



## maxista (Dec 20, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> i'm not quoting the contract.
> 
> never did and I apologize if that was where the confusion is.
> 
> ...


If I called the cops every time a drunken passenger posed a threat I'd have 911 on speed dial. I've read your answers and I think you're confused about personal responsibility. If a rider is out of control, which they often can be in my 2100 Uber ride experience, it is my right to kick them out wherever we are. If someone is being rude or threatening, I can drop them off on the side of the freeway and not break any laws. It's my car, it's my time, it's my life, and if you're going to be an asshole, f*ck off. Not my problem what happens to you. Uber doesn't pay us, Uber doesn't own us, they don't tell us what to do. Uber provides us with an app, the passengers use that app, and we get paid by the passengers through the Uber app. As much as I criticize Uber, and as much as I dislike the way they do business, I feel that the only persons at fault here, are the passenger, and the homeowner. If you're too drunk to realize you're not even in your own home, and are stupid enough to get thrown out of an Uber, you're the problem, you're your problem. If a stupid drunk gets in your house confused and you kill them, you're also the problem. We aren't god damn baby sitters.


----------



## PinCoUberDriver (Jan 15, 2016)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Before the cancel fee went away I would say $5 isn't so bad with not dealing with a drunk and I'm sure if the distance was that great the driver wouldn't have accepted the ping anyways
> 
> What would you rather have on your hand? The idea that you could have done something (eg call the cops and have this person stored away in a tank until they sober up) or the idea that you let him off in an area unfamiliar to him and look, he did get hurt, not just hurt but killed.
> 
> ...


Please consider that you are looking at this incident with 20/20 hindsight and knowledge of what happened after the eject. We don't know why he was ejected from the vehicle, and we only have one side of the story. So, from a moral standpoint, some actions are enough to get you ejected, but the situation at the time may not have warranted the escalation to getting the police involved. It comes down to judgement at the time.


----------



## uplito (Dec 21, 2015)

Interesting the some people state the driver is to blame for being dropping pax off in a bad area, that being the case why not sue the local police for not cleaning up the area. People need to be accountable for their action , sorry that this person is dead but people in all walks of life to own up and take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

uplito said:


> Interesting the some people state the driver is to blame for being dropping pax off in a bad area, that being the case why not sue the local police for not cleaning up the area. People need to be accountable for their action , sorry that this person is dead but people in all walks of life to own up and take responsibility for their actions.


By that logic shouldn't the driver have to live up to his responsibility?


----------



## uplito (Dec 21, 2015)

Demon the driver cant be responsible for what the pax does once he is out of his car. Opening up big can of worms, without knowing the full facts i would be guessing this probably occurred lets say 15 minutes after getting out of the vehicle. Do you set a time limit for example after the pax gets out of vehicle what ever he does the driver is responsible, clearly NO. Lets say for example if your state speed limit is 100kmh , i kill somebody driving my vehicle doing 130 kmh do i sue the car manufacturer for building vehicles that can do 200kmh way above the state speed limit. No because clearly its my responsibility.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Interesting example. If the automobile manufacturer didn't do a good job of making sure the car was properly functioning in your scenario they would have no responsibility when you killed someone?


----------

