# Uber Says It's Not Liable for Drivers' Misdeeds



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/01/uber-says-its-not-liable-for-drivers-misdeeds.htm

*Uber Says It's Not Liable for Drivers' Misdeeds *
By MARIA DINZEO 
ShareThis

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A lawyer for Uber told a federal judge Friday that the ride-hailing company isn't responsible for the actions of two of its drivers, whom two women claim raped them on separate occasions.
"The job being performed has nothing to do with the act," Uber attorney Josh Cohen said, arguing that the sexual assaults alleged by two Jane Does occurred for the "personal gratification" of the drivers and were in no way connected to their jobs.
The two women sued Uber this past October, claiming they were sexually assaulted by drivers in Boston and South Carolina despite a corporate marketing campaign that promotes Uber as one of the safest options for getting home after a night of drinking.
Does' lawsuit blames Uber's deficient background checks, which have allowed people convicted of murder, kidnapping, assault, robbery, identity theft and sexually exploiting children to pass through Uber's screening process Another lawsuit filed by district attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles makes similar accusations.
One of the women, identified only as Jane Doe 1, says she was raped by a 38-year-old, 200-pound driver named Abderrahim Dakiri. After dropping off Doe 1's friends, Dakiri told her he "really liked her" and then forcibly kissed and groped the 20-year-old passenger after driving her 15 minutes off-route from her destination.
"She was unable to push him off," the complaint states, but she eventually managed to unlock the door and flee the vehicle. She ran to a friend's house, whose door was locked, but a passerby noticed her and together they called 911, according to the lawsuit.
The other assault occurred in South Carolina, where a driver named Patrick Aiello drove Jane Doe 2 and her friends to a bar, then several hours later drove Doe 2 and a male friend back to the friend's apartment. That ride was not requested using the Uber app but was given on the driver's own time, the lawsuit says.
After Aiello dropped off the male friend he offered Doe 2 a ride, which she accepted. Aiello then took her in the opposite direction of her home and after suggesting she pay for the ride with oral sex, he proceeded to viciously rape her, the lawsuit says.
Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge.
In court on a motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston asked Cohen about _Berger v. Southern Pacific_, a 1956 California case where a female passenger was assaulted by a porter on a Pullman car. The First Appellate District ruled that the jury in the case, which found for Berger, had been properly instructed that the Pullman Company was responsible for the porter's conduct because it owed a duty of care to its passengers. Pullman was not found to be a common carrier - a transportation company responsible for the loss of goods during transport - but was still responsible for its passengers' safety.
"When I think about Uber and the cars it becomes more problematic," Illston said. "Is it a common carrier when a passenger is in it? Is it a common carrier other times?"
Jeanne Christensen, the attorney representing the women, said Uber had a higher duty of care. "When a driver is driving on the Uber app is when the common-carrier statute is applicable. That's when he's on duty," she said. "Uber tries to say it's not a transportation service provider under common-carrier statute but that's exactly what it is when the driver is on the Uber app - driving someone from one destination to another for money."
Cohen argued that the Aiello assault didn't occur while he was using the Uber app and that in any case, Uber is merely an arranger of transportation, not a transportation company.
"The notion that Uber is sometimes a common carrier and sometimes not at other times exposes the flaw in the argument it is at all times a facilitator, an arranger, a tool by which a rider can connect with a driver," he said.
Going back to _Berger, _Illston countered, "We have to apply statutes that were written before Uber thought these things up. They apply to different kinds of companies but they were statutes indented to address a specific kind of problem when you offer rides to the public."
Cohen said, "There is distinction between a facilitator and an actual provider of transportation. I also think from a policy standpoint there is something really problematic that scope of employment disappears from the equation when you're talking about a common carrier."
Christensen said that Uber is in the business of providing transportation to the public. Its drivers routinely interact with the public, she said, and such jobs have always required a higher duty of care.
"It's a public-policy decision," she said. "You're entrusting your safety to this person who's taking you from one place to the next, and on that basis they are held to a higher degree of care."
Illston did not indicate which direction she was leaning in the case, but noted at the outset of the hearing that she had been inclined to deny Uber's motion based on the theory of respondeat superior - that employers are responsible for their employees' on-the-job conduct.
"Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence of an employment relationship and what they need to as to driver Dakiri. I'm not so clear about Aiello."
But she added, "I think the common-carrier theory may not need to show scope of employment."


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

First: right, because we should NEVER blame the perp that actually does the rape, instead we should put full blame on Uber right? smh

2nd: It says they are suing because of uber's background checks. However it doesn't say if any of the drivers had previous criminal history and what previous crimes they committed

3rd: they argued that while app-on, the uber driver is a common carrier. but one of the assualts/raped happend when the app was off. You can't have it both ways (other incident he asked or she asked but in any even she accepted a ride that was not initiated by the uber app,but since he works for Uber they want to pin it on uber, even though she didn't order an uber trip)

My thoughts: Always blame the perp for any bad act they did under free will FIRST. Then, if applicable,hold a company liable for the action. Females: you should always order a ride via the app. Accepting a ride outside of the app is no different than just hopping a ride from someone off the street.

If the drivers did indeed do what they are accused of, then they should definitely deserve some jail time. If they had a clean history, im just not sure how Uber or any other company is supposed to know when a person is going to commit a heinous crime


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Uber's thorough background check on all drivers should shield them from any liability claims.

LOL


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Uber's thorough background check on all drivers should shield them from any liability claims.
> 
> LOL


Key phrase here is clean criminal history. If you haven't committed any crimes before, any type of super duper background check still cannot predict that a person may commit a future crime. A la Kalamazoo shooter


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> First: right, because we should NEVER blame the perp that actually does the rape, instead we should put full blame on Uber right? smh
> 
> 2nd: It says they are suing because of uber's background checks. However it doesn't say if any of the drivers had previous criminal history and what previous crimes they committed


Uh you might want to read that again Bart:

"Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge."


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Uber loves to duck responsibility, they are a transportation company, not simply an "arranger" as they claim. If they were an "arranger" drivers would be able to set their own prices and wouldn't be subjected to time outs for ignoring and deactivation for not driving once every 30 days.

An arranger doesn't dictate terms, conditions, pay, or commissions, that's done by an EMPLOYER. An "arranger" negotiates all these with the provider of the service. Uber never renegotiated my "contract," they said this is what it is and how it shall be, the same as an EMPLOYER who issues new work place rules.


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

Beur said:


> Uber loves to duck responsibility, they are a transportation company, not simply an "arranger" as they claim. If they were an "arranger" drivers would be able to set their own prices and wouldn't be subjected to time outs for ignoring and deactivation for not driving once every 30 days.
> 
> An arranger doesn't dictate terms, conditions, pay, or commissions, that's done by an EMPLOYER. An "arranger" negotiates all these with the provider of the service. Uber never renegotiated my "contract," they said this is what it is and how it shall be, the same as an EMPLOYER who issues new work place rules.


TBD


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Beur said:


> Uber loves to duck responsibility, they are a transportation company, not simply an "arranger" as they claim. If they were an "arranger" drivers would be able to set their own prices and wouldn't be subjected to time outs for ignoring and deactivation for not driving once every 30 days.
> 
> An arranger doesn't dictate terms, conditions, pay, or commissions, that's done by an EMPLOYER. An "arranger" negotiates all these with the provider of the service. Uber never renegotiated my "contract," they said this is what it is and how it shall be, the same as an EMPLOYER who issues new work place rules.


BAM!!!!


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

ABC123DEF said:


> BAM!!!!


One thing I must admit that is a continued response: "You don't have to drive for uber"...

Find a way to make it work for you!!! Lie, cheat, and manipulate in every effort possible s long as you provide an acceptable and professional ride to the pax...

This will all work itself out soon...


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

I don't really care to make it work for me. I'm totally burned on all the Foober antics. I'm waiting on a second interview for what hopefully will turn into a job with the state soon. Then I can start focusing on getting a secondary small business going so I can get much better work-life balance and get used to a regular schedule again. This isn't for me anymore.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

ABC123DEF said:


> I don't really care to make it work for me. I'm totally burned on all the Foober antics. I'm waiting on a second interview for what hopefully will turn into a job with the state soon. Then I can start focusing on getting a secondary small business going so I can get much better work-life balance and get used to a regular schedule again. This isn't for me anymore.


Good luck in your endeavors, and I wish you well...


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?


It's called association...

*association*
n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure. An association is not a legally-established corporation or a partnership. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant.

Uber clearly has defined operators as "Partners"


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Ahhh the " Georgia Guidestones".

They call us " partners", but we are not treated as such.


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Ahhh the " Georgia Guudestones".
> 
> They call us " partners", but we are not treated as such.


Enlightenment huh...

Partners may be the very distinction that slays the model!!!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?


Godwin loves me but here goes...
Nuremberg found concentration camp guards guilty of war crimes.
The ones who knowingly shuttled priaoners to firing squads etc.
Association, as pointed out earlier.
Uber signs up 100000000 drivers.
They have ownership of conduct.

They arent Acme drivers after all, they are Uber drivers.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Papa said:


> Enlightenment huh...
> 
> Partners may be the very distinction that slays the model!!!


Well, the background checking company that Uber HIRES to ensure public safety, would bear the brunt of the responsibility for endorsing the qualifications of dangerous criminals.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

That " partnership" role does not include me in any alleged " price fixing" schemes which are incidentally unsubstantiated.


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Well, the background checking company that Uber HIRES to ensure public safety, would bear the brunt of the responsibility for endorsing the qualifications of dangerous criminals.


Unfortunately that's not how it works. In fact...it wouldn't surprise me if the checking company was not a subsidiary or shell of Uber's. Say what you will, these guys are smart as hell. I don't like the way they operate, but I surely respect their game. They are smart, quick, and very strategic in every action. As drivers, we must do the same...when it no longer works, move on.

But, please don't be a slave to it.....................


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

tohunt4me said:


> How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?


Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


The Uber driver you mean...


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The Uber driver you mean...


What other driver could I be talking about? I said partner, isnt that what Uber calls its drivers?


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


What is meant by theme? It's a blog with opinions expressed.

Uber bears some responsibility purely based on association. (definition provided) The legal system allows claims to be made, and a decision is made based on the evidence of the suit or claim. If you're in the game, you are subject to the rules...if the current rules don't apply, there is room for legal precedent...One must prove their claim!!! You can't form a entity, reap the rewards of your genius and not expect claims...especially when there are potential abuses..........................................


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Papa said:


> What is meant by theme? It's a blog with opinions expressed.
> 
> Uber bears some responsibility purely based on association. (definition provided) The legal system allows claims to be made, and a decision is made based on the evidence of the suit or claim. If you're in the game, you are subject to the rules...if the current rules don't apply, there is room for legal precedent...One must prove their claim!!! You can't form a entity, deep the rewards of your genius and not expect claims...especially when there are potential abuses..........................................


You dont know what theme means in the way I used it? Smh

But you're missing the point, like totally. Like if an uber driver with app on picks up a pax and assaults them, uber is liable. I mean, thats common sense. The point is if you look at all the negative threads in this news section , you may find that in only 1% of the topics will anybody actually lay blame on the person that did the act. Obviously Uber didnt assualt anybody, the driver did. But people gloss over this fact, and put full blame on Uber. Yes Uber may be liable in some cases, but obviously Uber cant stop the free will of a human being. That's the point. All people here want to do is find out if the app was on.....thennnn....BAM! Blame uber!!! Background check of a persons past, simply cannot predict the future.


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> You dont know what theme means in the way I used it? Smh
> 
> But you're missing the point, like totally. Like if an uber driver with app on picks up a pax and assaults them, uber is liable. I mean, thats common sense. The point is if you look at all the negative threads in this news section , you may find that in only 1% of the topics will anybody actually lay blame on the person that did the act. Obviously Uber didnt assualt anybody, the driver did. But people gloss over this fact, and put full blame on Uber. Yes Uber may be liable in some cases, but obviously Uber cant stop the free will of a human being. That's the point. All people here want to do is find out if the app was on.....thennnn....BAM! Blame uber!!! Background check of a persons past, simply cannot predict the future.


*No I didn't know what theme meant as you used it, that's why I asked for clarity*. Words mean different things to different people. Clarity puts us on the same page!

Actually, I don't think I missed the point at all. *Uber is only liable if found liable...In a court of Law...not a blog!!!*

If one was to review a large number of cases related to Uber driver related assaults, the driver turns out to have a past...UBER RESPONSIBILITY while promoting safety!!!

*Again, Uber is only liable if found liable in a specific suit.* (otherwise its' Blog Talk) If Uber approves questionable drivers because their source pool has diminished due to sorry profits for the partner, and begins to accept potential criminals, there lies responsibility thru association...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/01/13/uber-planning-to-hire-former-felons/

I'm the wrong one Bart...


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Papa said:


> *No I didn't know what theme meant as you used it, that's why I asked for clarity*. Words mean different things to different people. Clarity puts us on the same page!
> 
> Actually, I don't think I missed the point at all. *Uber is only liable if found liable...In a court of Law...not a blog!!!*
> 
> ...


Yes, you are the wrong one. And I'm going to shake my head that you dont know what theme means, *SMH*
Once again, you missed the point
Dont know what the point was?
Heres where you can find it: Go back and read all the sentences in this your post I just quoted where you blame Uber. *Now quote me ONE sentence where you blame the driver for doing the bad act!!!!*


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?





Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


Welcome, again, gentlemen, to _*MY*_ _*WORLD*_ ( or what was my world). The cab drivers in the Washington Metropolitan Area are not employees of the cab companies. They always did, and, still do, affiliate with a company by contract.

This has not stopped the trend, started by the lawyers, endorsed by the courts then picked up by the regulators of holding the companies responsible for the misdeeds of the drivers. In fact, the D.C. Taxicab Commission, by rulemaking, specifically holds the companies responsible for the misdeeds of drivers. The lawyers started it because they thought, mistakenly (with one or two exceptions), that owning a cab company in this area was a licence to print money. Anyone with half an ounce of brains knows why the courts endorsed it. As for the regulators, it has been a trend in D.C. especially, to get the regulated to do the regulators' jobs for them, and, pay for the "privilege".

The leap to hold Uber responsible for miscreant drivers is not a difficult leap. If I were the lawyer for those women, I would bring in Uber's fighting regulation, especially its fighting the fingerprinting. If Uber is only a "tehcnology" company, why is it worried about fingerprinting _*drivers*_? Nobody wants to fingerprint the _*technology*_ _*company*_ or its office employees. No one wants the "technology company" to pay for it (except maybe the drivers, but we all know of what consequence the drivers are to these "technology companies'.). Something tells me that Uber's namecalling defence of "Opposed to innovation" will not work _*none too good, hyar'*_.

When I was a cab company Official, I argued the "responsibility point" with the regulators all the time. They issued the driver the licence. In order to receive his licence, the driver had to know the rules. In fact, he had to write a test which covered, among other things, the rules. After 1989, he had to go to cab school, first, and pass the class and write another test. Thus, after 1989, he had to pass a class and pass not one, but _*two, count 'em, *__*TWO*_ tests. Part of the cab school syllabus was, yup you guessed it "_*THE*_ _*RULES*_". Here we have an individual sent to my company by the DCTC with this licence that tells me that he knows the rules and has been checked out by the regulators (FBI check, mind you) and they want to hold me responsible when he breaks the rules? How about you hold this guy responsible for breaking the rules? You told me that he was allright. You issued him that face card that tells me that he is allright. I must assume that he knows the rules and the consequences of breaking them. Why do I need to edge-uh-MAH-kayte him any further on "the rules"? If you want me to edge-uh-MAH-kayte him on "the Rules". let me issue him the licence, as well. Further, let me choose the drivers that I want and send the washouts, bums, crybabies and troublemakers to my competitors.

Of course, they blew me off on that one. I suspect that part of the reason that they want to hold everyone responsible, except the guy _*what dun' did the deed*_ is that, in the case of most drivers, they are "judgement-proof". The most that you will get from half of these TNC drivers is a beat-up six year old Camry. Similarly, the most that you were going to get from these cab drivers was a beat-up eleven year old Mercury Sedan or Station Waggon or Chevrolet Caprice.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case*
*http://m.therecorder.com/#/article/...il&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder&_almReferrer=*

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge caught lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. by surprise on Friday, digging up precedent from the mid-20th century that could undercut a key part of its defense in a sexual assault case. 

The ride-hailing company is facing a lawsuit by two unnamed women who say they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers in 2015. One of Uber's chief arguments is that the drivers aren't employees, and thus it cannot be held liable for their conduct.

Both sides claim to have case law on their side. But at a hearing Friday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California cited a 1956 California appeals court decision that neither side had argued-or even appeared to be aware of. Berger v. Southern Pacific would seemingly favor the plaintiffs. The decision found that The Pullman Co., a passenger rail service provider, was liable for the rape of a passenger by one of its porters because it was a "common carrier."

"For me, that's the starting point," Illston said, adding that it showed the nature of an employment relationship does not necessarily get a company "off the hook." Illston indicated that she is likely to let the bulk of the claims against Uber go forward.

Central to the Berger decision is the idea that as a "common carrier," Pullman was responsible for a higher standard of care under law, and liable for the actions of individuals carrying out that duty. Uber contends that the label "common carrier" does not apply to its business model. But if it loses on that point, the case could be detrimental to its attempt to shake off liability.

The allegations against the Uber drivers in question are serious. One of the alleged victims, "Jane Doe 1," claims that Uber driver Abderrahim Dakiri began groping her and kissing her during a ride late at night on Feb. 8, 2015, in Boston. She says he then pulled over the car and climbed on top of her, but that she managed to escape.

The woman identified as "Jane Doe 2" in the complaint claims to have been "viciously" raped by Uber driver Patrick Aiello on Aug. 9, 2015, in Charleston, South Carolina. Aiello allegedly drove the victim to a secluded parking lot after dropping off her friend.

Uber's lawyer, Josh Cohen of Clarence Dyer & Cohen, argued Friday that the "common carrier" label does not apply because the company arranges the transportation of people from one place to another-similar to a broker-but is not actually responsible for providing the transportation.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor said that, to the contrary, when Uber drivers are using the company's app, the company is responsible for the safe care of their passengers.

Christensen, however, seemed to concede that this is not the case when drivers are not actively driving for Uber. That could be important for one of the unnamed plaintiffs, "Jane Doe 2," as it's disputed whether the ride during which he allegedly raped her was initiated through the Uber app.

Cohen tried to poke holes in Christensen's theory. "The notion that Uber is sometimes a common carrier and not a common carrier at other times I think exposes the flaw in the argument," he said.

"It could make sense," Illston shot back. The common-carrier statutes were drafted at a time when Uber's business model did not exist, but that doesn't necessarily mean the company completely falls outside their scope, she said.

As in the various other cases against Uber, the plaintiffs in the sexual assault case are arguing that the accused drivers are Uber employees, while the company argues they are independent contractors. If the plaintiffs fail on this issue, the "common carrier" argument could serve as a backstop.

The suit accuses Uber of negligence and fraud, and seeks to hold the company liable for assault, battery, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by the drivers. The fraud claims broadly hinge on the argument that the company misrepresented its ability to ensure that passengers are kept safe during a trip.

Contact the reporter at [email protected].


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

This all falls back to the safety issues of doing a thorough background check on the drivers. I know there are some cases where drivers have committed serious offense and didn't have a criminal record like the shooter in michigan. But more the most part, the drivers need to be fingerprinted and regulated. That doesn't guarantee 100% safety but it is definitely an improvement.

Uber always find ways to distance them selves from the driver whether they're classified as employees or IC's. Either way they should shoulder some of the responsibility.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case*
> *http://m.therecorder.com/#/article/1202753939545/Uber-Defense-Falls-Flat-in-Driver-Rape-Case?kw=Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case&cn=20160404&pt=News Alert&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder&_almReferrer=*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge caught lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. by surprise on Friday, digging up precedent from the mid-20th century that could undercut a key part of its defense in a sexual assault case.
> ...


Common Carrier Bart McCoy .
SMH no more my friend.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Big Foober is like an immature teenager...doesn't want rules or regulations, doesn't want to take responsibility for anything...and yet knows EVERYTHING.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> 1956 California appeals court decision Berger v. Southern Pacific would seemingly favor the plaintiffs. The decision found that The Pullman Co., a passenger rail service provider, was liable for the rape of a passenger by one of its porters because it was a "common carrier."


I do not know if this twist would have any bearing on the case, but, at that time, the Pullman Company actually had, under court order, divested itself of the sleeping and parlour cars on the railroads (the order came down in the late 1940s). As the railroads did not want to do anything more than keep the First Class Cars in the train, the y contracted with Pullman to staff and operate the cars. Thus, at that time, the Pullman Company was working under contract to Southern Pacific Company.


----------



## Tommy eren (Jan 31, 2016)

You are basically a driver for UBER. You may or may not be employed by uber but you are using their name, their application to do business. 

Uber is trying to be slick saying their just tech company. In this case, it doesn't work. You are advertising that you are the safest transportation company then you turn around and say you are not liable for drivers actions. 

Simple example: It goes without saying, if you get injured in walmart(or whatever retailer) do you sue the cleaning guy or the company? 

They refuse to get fingerprints from their drivers then they claim they do background checks.....


----------



## Papa (May 14, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, you are the wrong one. And I'm going to shake my head that you dont know what theme means, *SMH*
> Once again, you missed the point
> Dont know what the point was?
> Heres where you can find it: Go back and read all the sentences in this your post I just quoted where you blame Uber. *Now quote me ONE sentence where you blame the driver for doing the bad act!!!!*


*Uber is only liable if found liable...In a court of Law...not a blog!!!*


----------



## naplestom75 (May 3, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> How is Uber responsible for every idiot in a car ?


They aren't responsible for the idiot, but they are responsible for bringing the two together.


----------



## KekeLo (Aug 26, 2015)

Papa said:


> It's called association...
> 
> *association*
> n. any group of people who have joined together for a particular purpose, ranging from social to business, and usually meant to be a continuing organization. It can be formal, with rules and/or by-laws, membership requirements and other trappings of an organization, or it can be a collection of people without structure. An association is not a legally-established corporation or a partnership. To make this distinction the term "unincorporated association" is often used, although technically redundant.
> ...


You know your s***.


----------



## Tnasty (Mar 23, 2016)

Those rapes hurt fuber bad, women don't get in my car the same way anymore.They need to decide to be a transportation company or a tech.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Beur said:


> Uber loves to duck responsibility,


Can you name one big company that LOVES to take responsibility for all actions of their independent contractors or employees?

If you can name one, then its pointless for them to have attorneys. Name one big company that doesn't have lawyers

for the slow folks: Its common business practice to limit responsibility of bad actions of the folks they hire. It costs them money and may tarnish their image. *Uber is doing the same as any other big company would do, which is limiting their responsibility as much as possible!!!
*
_This is Business 101 folks_


----------



## UberLou (May 5, 2015)

I just Googled my full name. Did I just do an Uber background check?


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

What the lawyers said isn't quite the same impression you get from what is portrayed to passengers here:

https://www.uber.com/safety/

Perhaps the first paragraph there should reflect the arguments made by the attorneys for Uber about how they aren't responsible for various misdeeds of drivers.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> What other driver could I be talking about? I said partner, isnt that what Uber calls its drivers?


I think you just made his point.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

Lets take a hypothetical here. Time Warner Cable uses contractors to do new service installs. You call for new service, contractor comes, rapes you. 

Criminal charges will be sought and pressed on the contractor. Your attorney will sue everyone who might have money to pay, will name at least Time Warner and the contractor. This seems appropriate to me since you contracted with Time Warner for service and one of their agents attacked you.

Fast forward to Uber. The pax thinks they are contracting with Uber. They order a ride through the Uber app, pay Uber, complain to Uber if there's a problem that needs resolution and they rely upon Uber's promise of Safety when they paid the trust and safety fee. Uber claims they check and vet their drivers, I'm thinking that alone will make them liable. 

I am reminded of an example of case law I learned about. Parking lot with no attendant can post a sign saying not responsible .... and get away with it. Parking lot with guard can't even if the same sign is up and guard was out to lunch because they gave the appearance of security which a customer might reasonably rely upon. If I were a betting man I think that they will be found liable in at least the case where the ride was on app.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Disgusted Driver said:


> If I were a betting man I think that they will be found liable in at least the case where the ride was on app.


Well,_ if the driver app is on in any case, uber will most likely somehow be at least partly liable._ Mainly because lawyers/people are greedy, partly because the app is on and uber is responsible simply because they contracted that person(aka Uber didn't actually do anything,just the driver), and lastly, and the least part of a lawsuit, is because Uber is the legitimate cause, and actually *directly* caused whatever a person is suing for.....


----------



## uberpa (Nov 12, 2015)

Talk to the Kalamazoo shooter!
I think he's sued uber already. 
The victims should've done the same.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Lets take a hypothetical here. Time Warner Cable uses contractors to do new service installs. You call for new service, contractor comes, rapes you.
> 
> Criminal charges will be sought and pressed on the contractor. Your attorney will sue everyone who might have money to pay, will name at least Time Warner and the contractor. This seems appropriate to me since you contracted with Time Warner for service and one of their agents attacked you.
> 
> ...


 Many companies also require the contractor to be bonded. When the Houston Post was still in business I know they required their contractors to be bonded. The contractors might farm the work out to someone else to deliver the papers (most did) but those contractors worked for the Post's contractor. There was another layer inbetween.

There were also no advertisements telling folks how "safe" their newspaper delivery person was.

If you can't even have a contract with a newspaper without being bonded, why is it that Uber claims the drivers are safer, yet says they have no responsibility if they're not? Why do ANY background check in that case?

It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all about the APPEARANCE of safety, nothing else.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Time Warner TRIED to rape me 3 days ago, kicked them out, called Uverese and paid my broadband bill to get the crap turned on again.
Known rape
Vs.
New rape
Aint no way i was gonna let that little methhead drill holes in my new house.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well,_ if the driver app is on in any case, uber will most likely somehow be at least partly liable._ Mainly because lawyers/people are greedy, partly because the app is on and uber is responsible simply because they contracted that person(aka Uber didn't actually do anything,just the driver), and lastly, and the least part of a lawsuit, is because Uber is the legitimate cause, and actually *directly* caused whatever a person is suing for.....


Your all about the app being on.



KevinH said:


> The other assault occurred in South Carolina, where a driver named Patrick Aiello drove Jane Doe 2 and her friends to a bar, then several hours later drove Doe 2 and a male friend back to the friend's apartment. That ride was not requested using the Uber app but was given on the driver's own time, the lawsuit says.


The article does not mention the first ride to the bar as if the app was on or not.

Let's assume the first call (ride) was done thru Uber App. Driver says call me when your done gives him his phone number. They call him. (app off) ...He drops off boyfriend then does whatever is alleged to female passenger.

So technically he is still a Uber Driver...


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Just_in said:


> Your all about the app being on.


Yes, thats an important part. I mean you want to blame Uber for people doing stuff in their own free time with the app off? Really? Smh


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well,_ if the driver app is on in any case, uber will most likely somehow be at least partly liable._ Mainly because lawyers/people are greedy, partly because the app is on and uber is responsible simply because they contracted that person(aka Uber didn't actually do anything,just the driver), and lastly, and the least part of a lawsuit, is because Uber is the legitimate cause, and actually *directly* caused whatever a person is suing for.....


 The Perry Mason of uber!!!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, thats an important part. I mean you want to blame Uber for people doing stuff in their own free time with the app off? Really? Smh


Diary of the Uber Killer;
"Hour 1: app on, transport pax.
Hour 2: app off, kill non pax. Mustn't make Uber liable.
Hour 3, app on, pax.
Hour 4; app off, kill. God im so freakin responsible!".


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

As log as the app is on, he/she is representing uber. IC or employee.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> First: right, because we should NEVER blame the perp that actually does the rape, instead we should put full blame on Uber right? smh
> 
> 2nd: It says they are suing because of uber's background checks. However it doesn't say if any of the drivers had previous criminal history and what previous crimes they committed
> 
> ...


On point three, I would add this: No passenger should ride "off app" with any driver who isn't possessing local permits and commercial insurance.

This is a widespread problem. Non-commercial UBERX drivers are running "off app" trips everywhere. It's impossible to quantify, but certainly this is going on.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, thats an important part. I mean you want to blame Uber for people doing stuff in their own free time with the app off? Really? Smh


You sure shake your head a lot.

I'm taking it as you don't understand..


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Beur said:


> Uh you might want to read that again Bart:
> 
> "Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge."


POST # 5/Beur: Thank Heavens that you
are here as a Countervailing Force providing Assistanceto OP KevinH against the Good Ol'Boy Tsunami of Continuous Contra-rianisms & Mind-Numbing MarylanderMinutiae !


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, thats an important part. I mean you want to blame Uber for people doing stuff in their own free time with the app off? Really? Smh


 I think Uber has made it much easier for people to get away with that. The whole system is geared toward lawlessness...


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

KevinH said:


> http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/01/uber-says-its-not-liable-for-drivers-misdeeds.htm
> 
> *Uber Says It's Not Liable for Drivers' Misdeeds *
> By MARIA DINZEO
> ...


POST # 1/KevinH : Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Hyperlinked Courthouse News.com
Article...AND THE COMPLETE printout!

Although, REPORTEDLY, each Lawsuit
Filed gives TCK a "Rise...in his Levis",
WHEN are the Drooling Inve$tor$ with
$Million$ burning a HOLE in their res-
pective pockets GONNA wake-up and
realize that FrattyBoi is "Burning Down
the House!"?

Mentoring Bison: Apologies to DEVO.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

ABC123DEF said:


> BAM!!!!


POST # 8/ABC123DEF : " W H A M ! "

Mentoring Bison: Apologies to G.Michaels


----------



## tripAces (Jun 18, 2015)

Plain and simple! Uber should be held responsible for anything a driver does with a passenger whether on or off the application. As long as the pax can prove they met during a on app. trip.

Now this is my argument. Uber does a lousy job vetting driver's. A person I know drove for Uber even though COH up held him from driving do to the City requires fingerprints. If Uber would regulate itself then it would cut out most of the idiot driver's. 
Also Uber needs to make all pax watch a video of how Uber app works in keeping them safe. Then have the pax "confirm" they saw the video. Within the video it would say to not do cash rides. 
This would allow Uber to prove they do what they can to protect the public. 

Also Uber needs to protect itself by making driver's sign a agreement to not do cash rides etc off app. Just saying its not allowed is no good.

Many say Uber is a smart company but they leave themself wide open for lawsuits all the time. Also playing the "dumb pax card" can go along ways since Uber leaves themself open.

And finally all this is doing is proving Uber is a employer and everyone driving is a employee. Making driver's "accept" to not do cash rides would be the nail in coffin.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

I see the hate and disdain for Uber is deep. People need to just quit driving for them, problem solved


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case*
> *http://m.therecorder.com/#/article/1202753939545/Uber-Defense-Falls-Flat-in-Driver-Rape-Case?kw=Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case&cn=20160404&pt=News Alert&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder&_almReferrer=*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge caught lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. by surprise on Friday, digging up precedent from the mid-20th century that could undercut a key part of its defense in a sexual assault case.
> ...


POST # 28/chi1cabby : MORE of the
High Quality Work-
Product from St. Comity of Chicago, Our
#1 Notable UPNF Member.

Mentoring Bison: Boffo Box Office !


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

I think the interesting point in the legal arguments is that if they are ONLY a transportation facilitator then how can they argue they have no responsibility when the app is not on, since it can be used at any time? And if they are arguing they are not a carrier when the app is on, then doesn't that mean they are when it is?

The point I'm trying to make, and which is made in the article, is that they can't have it both ways. Which is what their entire business is based on--being whatever works at any point. But eventually that has to come crashing down.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> I see the hate and disdain for Uber is deep. People need to just quit driving for them, problem solved


 I adore uber!! Like i do a root cancel.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

UberLou said:


> I just Googled my full name. Did I just do an Uber background check?


POST #:39/UberLou: No....no.....no.....
The "Best in Industry"
Background Checks are performed by
Certified Sphincter-Sniffers vetted by
FrattyBoi Kakanicky himself to avoid
ANY Appearance of Impropriety or
N-N-N-Nepotism. His Wii "Onanist"
buddies are given "First Crack"....err...
as it were.

Mentoring Bison: Does it smell like Ayn
☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ Rand? Asking for a Friend.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> What other driver could I be talking about? I said partner, isnt that what Uber calls its drivers?


good eye, you're absolutely right, they call the Uber drivers. What do they call cabbies? oh right, I just said it CABBIES, see how's there is no company affiliation. You don't ever call them your Yellow Cabbie or or Orange Cab driver do you?



Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


Yes when in doubt blame Uber first and you will correct 99% of the time. Perhaps you can find another forum where all the drivers blame themselves and stroke TKs pony all day, chomping at the bit for minimum 1x fares.

here try this
http://takeuber.com/tag/love-uber/


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

UberLou said:


> I just Googled my full name. Did I just do an Uber background check?


Yup. You're good to go!!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case*
> *http://m.therecorder.com/#/article/1202753939545/Uber-Defense-Falls-Flat-in-Driver-Rape-Case?kw=Uber Defense Falls Flat in Driver Rape Case&cn=20160404&pt=News Alert&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=The Recorder&_almReferrer=*
> 
> SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge caught lawyers for Uber Technologies Inc. by surprise on Friday, digging up precedent from the mid-20th century that could undercut a key part of its defense in a sexual assault case.
> ...


The fact that this judge found an obscure case even the plaintiffs weren't aware of indicates she was very interested in and looking very closely at, this case. Makes you wonder how much on judges' radar uber IS, these days.

Judges don't like their decisions to be reversed so they will want to get "Uber issues" right.

Should be interesting. I find the legal stuff fascinating, even as I wish it were all settled and Uber lost already.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Yes, thats an important part. I mean you want to blame Uber for people doing stuff in their own free time with the app off? Really? Smh


So your saying I'm covered by Uber's insurance for rape if the apps on? good to know


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The fact that this judge found an obscure case even the plaintiffs weren't aware of indicates she was very interested in and looking very closely at, this case. Makes you wonder how much on judges' radar uber IS, these days.
> 
> Judges don't like their decisions to be reversed so they will want to get "Uber issues" right.
> 
> Should be interesting. I find the legal stuff fascinating, even as I wish it were all settled and Uber lost already.


Makes you wonder what the judge's raping, I mean rating is.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

It's always a double-edged sword with uber. When there's trouble they say (we have nothing to do with it), and yet they can still control the prices (rates/mile min etc. They want it both ways. The Uber law!


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> I see the hate and disdain for Uber is deep. People need to just quit driving for them, problem solved


But then there would be no more uber and you would have nothing to fight for.

embrace it


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Uber charged patrons a "safe ride" fee until recently, and they do exercise a lot of supervision over its drivers. If they were only selling the use of the app to drivers, they'd have more of a case.

Probably should just make a settlement here, a judgment could influence the lawmakers into deeming drivers as "employees" which isn't what they want.


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Better call Saul


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

ChortlingCrison said:


> It's always a double-edged sword with uber. When there's trouble they say (we have nothing to do with it), and yet they can still control the prices (rates/mile min etc. They want it both ways. The Uber law!


Welcome to the slave trade


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Uber's soul income comes from its drivers. Any company that has an individual providing services on behalf of that company is responsible for their actions. Dominos Pizza had to pay out a $32 million dollar fine for an accident involving one of their drivers 



A company has to vett the drivers, vehicles and there should be an interviewing process. Passengers report drivers having very limited English skills & driving abilities. Many have issues paying attention to the road while using gps.
Some companies have further testing and run federal background checks and many top jobs require potential candidates interviewed by a psychologist. Uber cannot keep washing their hands. Ship up or face more lawsuits for ignoring responsibility.


----------



## uber strike (Jan 10, 2016)

uber will always have these type of incidents as long as they continue the practice of signing up drivers in masses. uber has an extremely high turnover of drivers. with rate cuts uber is losing their experienced and trusted drivers and signing up anybody that can drive. uber has so many drivers coming in and out off the platform that they will inevitably sign up people with bad intentions and that want to take advantage of drunk women. uber must make it a priority to do what it can to keep their drivers that are of proven character. if a driver has over 1,000 trips, has zero incidents and has shown integrity by turning in lost items...these drivers should be kept on the platform. why should uber continue to sign up drivers that are not tried and true at the expense and safety of the passenger. safety should be of utmost importance for uber.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Uber charged patrons a "safe ride" fee until recently, and they do exercise a lot of supervision over its drivers. If they were only selling the use of the app to drivers, they'd have more of a case.
> 
> Probably should just make a settlement here, a judgment could influence the lawmakers into deeming drivers as "employees" which isn't what they want.


I like this part "Uber charged patrons a "safe ride" fee until recently". Exactly, it was called a safe ride fee until they found out that they weren't providing safe rides. Now it's called a booking fee. I think they lost a lawsuit with the safe ride fee language along with advertising that they provided the safest rides in the industry.

https://consumerist.com/2016/02/12/...ions-it-misled-customers-on-safety-practices/


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

backstreets-trans said:


> I like this part "Uber charged patrons a "safe ride" fee until recently". Exactly, it was called a safe ride fee until they found out that they weren't providing safe rides. Now it's called a booking fee. I think they lost a lawsuit with the safe ride fee language along with advertising that they provided the safest rides in the industry.
> 
> https://consumerist.com/2016/02/12/...ions-it-misled-customers-on-safety-practices/


Whats a 28 mil loss to a company that has plans to take over the world. Uber is only worth billions today but one day it will be worth trillions.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

ubershiza said:


> Whats a 28 mil loss to a company that has plans to take over the world. Uber is only worth billions today but one day it will be worth trillions.


They'll need trillions to pay off all the lawyers and lawsuits. I would like to know how much has already been spent on legal fees.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> Uber's thorough background check on all drivers should shield them from any liability claims. LOL


Thorough ... you mean as in, upload anyone's info and it doesn't even need to be the info of the person driving; because we're never gonna verify that the person whose documents were uploaded is actually the driver, because we're not going to meet you in person and we're not going to require fingerprints to verify that these are your documents. (as in this case)


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> 2nd: It says they are suing because of uber's background checks. However it doesn't say if any of the drivers had previous criminal history and what previous crimes they committed


I guess you glazed over this part of the article "Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge." Not that this automatically ensures that he's prone to commit rape. However, there are certain crimes that should preclude someone from a position of trust ... I bet there were a bunch of jobs that rejected him based on his prior conviction ... yet Uber has virtually a "come one, come all" policy.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

ABC123DEF said:


> Big Foober is like an immature teenager...doesn't want rules or regulations, doesn't want to take responsibility for anything...and yet knows EVERYTHING.


OR it wants to pick and choose the laws that it will abide by. One thing that everyone seems to forget ... that Uber operated illegally in most, if not all, cities until they were able to either lobby, force or browbeat the local officials into giving them the right to drive & pickup pax. Uber operated illegally here in Austin for over a year; and while they paid the fines & impound fees for the drivers ... it was the driver "partners" who got the 2 points added to their licenses.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> I guess you glazed over this part of the article "Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge."


And I guess you glazed over somebody pointing that out many replies ago, smh


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> (aka Uber didn't actually do anything,just the driver)


granted the driver committed the rape; but ... key operative phrase "Uber didn't actually do anything" ... correct, for instance, they didn't reject Aiello (as a driver) considering that Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge. Uber is not responsible for the rape occurring, per se; however, one can infer that the pax would have never crossed paths with Aiello had it not been for the Uber app. And further, the pax had a reasonable expectation of a safe ride, since Uber consistently promotes the company as "the safest ride in the world".


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)




----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

All arguing aside, this kind of stuff raises some very interesting questions which will need to be addressed in court. 

As I mentioned earlier, I think Uber is going to lose this one for ON APP rides because they give the appearance of screening for safety and any reasonable person would think they were contracting with Uber for the ride, not the individual driver. 

OFF APP is more interesting. If you rode with the driver earlier and then allowed them to pick you up off the app later I don't think Uber has a lot of responsibility if any. You are no longer contracting with or paying Uber for the ride and you have been told as a consumer to order your ride and pay for it through the app. But here's where things get really interesting and warped in the minds of attorneys:

What happens if you request a ride through the app and are told that David will come pick you up in a Chrysler 300 License plate 123 ABC. David shows up in a Toyota Prius, license plate 666 XXX and tells you sorry, his other car is in the shop. You get in and he then proceeds to:

A) Get into an horrific wreck. Are you covered by Uber insurance? I think they would argue no because you did not get into an authorized Uber vehicle and have been instructed to check car, driver and license before getting in the vehicle. 

B) David assaults you, Is Uber liable for the action of their driver if he arrives in wrong vehicle that passenger should not have gotten into? 

Fun stuff!! I think this will make for some interesting case law in the sharing economy. Whatever the case, a lot of bad stuff would have to come flying down the pike to slow Uber down. Judgements they can pay, what they need to worry about is new laws based on the perception these incidents create.


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

Some really interesting comments. Most of you are very concerned about how Uber screens drivers but the management sees it differently and this should be a concern to all. Things are starting to backfire on Uber these days and Uber and it's drivers are going to be the lovers in the future. Regulators are now making rules that are much more to Ubers dislike and will make it more difficult to recruit drivers. The pay is now so low that any good driver would never stick around. Customers have clearly shifted away from Uber except for the ones who only care about a cheap ride and the general public who has never used Uber wouldn't want to try it because of the stories and recent events. More importantly, they are turned off because of Travis and the Uber lies. Up here in Canada where I live, people at first praised Uber for its disruptive methods but now the people have really wised up. They are now learning that most regulations have for reasons behind them. 
By reading the comments here I can tell most of you care. You want to work with this new type of transportation but you know that deep down there is something amiss and that you somehow feel that you have been scammed and don't want to be part of their scam any longer. There will soon be rivals to Uber where the rates are fair for all and the companies are accountable.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

Another factor to consider is the double standard where taxi companies are held liable while uber thinks it shouldn't be. If they get lawmakers to accept this loophole then every industry will try to follow. Another example is a general contractor for building a house. If the subcontractors they hire screw something up the general is ultimately held responsible. Even the ESPN news anchor held the hotel responsible for one of the fellow guests video taping her. Big Corporations have to be held to some level of responsibility or public safety concerns will go out the window. Then everyone will be carrying guns and the wild west will return.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

trickynikki ... I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I don't care how hard it is for Uber to recruit drivers ... as currently anyone with a pulse is accepted onto the platform in most localities. It's a shame that we have to get more regulations on the books to force companies to be good neighbors; because clearly some companies, like Uber would be happy as a clam raping & pillaging until there was nothing left but scorched earth. Clearly, Uber doesn't care about their pax ... because if they did they'd adopt best safety practices (like fingerprints, interview drivers, etc); stop hiring drivers sight unseen; etc. The marketplace is prime for some solid competition that provide better than Uber service, safety, support, drivers.


----------



## ChortlingCrison (Mar 30, 2016)

I guess uber thinks a "panic" button will solve all the safety concerns.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Ziggy said:


> granted the driver committed the rape; but ... key operative phrase "Uber didn't actually do anything" ... correct, for instance, they didn't reject Aiello (as a driver) considering that Aiello had previously been convicted of a domestic violence assault charge. Uber is not responsible for the rape occurring, per se; however, one can infer that the pax would have never crossed paths with Aiello had it not been for the Uber app. And further, the pax had a reasonable expectation of a safe ride, since Uber consistently promotes the company as "the safest ride in the world".


You do know you're responding to a post where I said Uber WAS liable right?????? smh. I thought I clearly described the difference between uber being liable because of the app and uber actually doing something. You turn around and still use an example where Uber is liable. Uber did not rape the lady if you're having a hard time grasping that. That means Uber won't go to jail for 20 years for it, only driver will. My post simply said Uber can be held LIABLE(which in almost all cases with Uber only civilly,driver is held liable CRIMINALLY and CIVILLY, learn the difference),since Uber didn't actually COMMIT the rape.There's a huge difference between being liable and actually doing something (commiting the crime) which Uber didn't do. The latter which the way yall blame Uber . You understand now? smh


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> First: right, because we should NEVER blame the perp that actually does the rape, instead we should put full blame on Uber right? smh
> 
> 2nd: It says they are suing because of uber's background checks. However it doesn't say if any of the drivers had previous criminal history and what previous crimes they committed
> 
> ...


The driver is certainly to be prosecuted but Uber is also liable via vicarious liability and absolutely should be named I a civil suit.


----------



## Lnsky (Jan 2, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Well, the background checking company that Uber HIRES to ensure public safety, would bear the brunt of the responsibility for endorsing the qualifications of dangerous criminals.


Uber is free to turn around and sue them but as for this particular incident Uber is still the liable party, it had choice of background checks. Uber's argument doesn't hold up. It is like the Catholic Church arguing it isn't responsible for priests raping boys because it has nothing to do with their job duties.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Lnsky said:


> Uber is free to turn around and sue them but as for this particular incident Uber is still the liable party, it had choice of background checks. Uber's argument doesn't hold up. It is like the Catholic Church arguing it isn't responsible for priests raping boys because it has nothing to do with their job duties.


There are 2 cases in this story. One with app on and another with a woman basically hitchhiking a ride from a man on his spare time. YOu saying Uber is still liable for what its drivers do all the time off-duty with the app off as well?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> There are 2 cases in this story. One with app on and another with a woman basically hitchhiking a ride from a man on his spare time. YOu saying Uber is still liable for what its drivers do all the time off-duty with the app off as well?


Sigh.
Bart, we have covered this.
If a cab owner op disobeys the law off duty in his cab, the company he franchises with always gets named in the case.
An Uber owner op is no different. 
Uber has accepted a vehicle application complete with photographs, registration, insurance coverage, vin# etc.
The Uber owner op company relationship is identical to the cab franchise owner op relationship.

Uber is basically the worlds largest taxi association.
If the off duty Uber drivers did the crime in their uber accepted vehicle, the crime can be ASSOCIATED with Uber.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sigh.
> Bart, we have covered this.
> If a cab owner op disobeys the law off duty in his cab, the company he franchises with always gets named in the case.
> An Uber owner op is no different.
> .


You gotta be kidding me Uber/taxi is the same. With uber, your "work" car is your private car as well. So anytime you are not working uber, you're still in your "work" car,since you say its the same as a cab. So with your thinking, If im only registered to drive in Maryland, if I took a vacation to Las vegas (app off since of course im not registered to drive there), committed a murder while the U sticker was on my car, Uber would still be liable huh? smh. You still want to say owning a cab is the same as owning an Uber car???????????????????????????????????????

Like I said, an Uber driver OWNS their car. So according to you, even while not doing Uber, any crime that a person commits in their personal car, Uber will be liable for , even with the app off. *THAT MAKES NO SENSE.You lost all credibility on this board*


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sigh.
> Bart, we have covered this.
> If a cab owner op disobeys the law off duty in his cab, the company he franchises with always gets named in the case.
> An Uber owner op is no different.
> ...


With all due respect I have to strenuously disagree. I am not an attorney so you can assume I have no clue as to what I'm speaking about but here goes:
In a company vehicle, one can presume that the company sanctions the activity going on. If I have a cab that's painted with the markings of the company I franchise with a passenger that hails me assumes that the ride is sanctioned by the company. You should have no such expectation about Uber. If you use the app, anything you do should be covered by Uber BUT if you privately contract with the driver a reasonable person would understand that they are cutting Uber out of the picture. Similar call in my mind if you get into a different car, it's the consumers responsibility to verify that it's the right car.

It's also unreasonable to assume that if I'm not logged into the app and I decide to plow through a farmers market and kill a dozen people that Uber has no responsibility in that case. If I'm logged into the app when I do that, that's a great question for the courts to answer, I have no idea. This is what makes the law fun, it's complicated stuff.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Y


Disgusted Driver said:


> With all due respect I have to strenuously disagree. I am not an attorney so you can assume I have no clue as to what I'm speaking about but here goes:
> In a company vehicle, one can presume that the company sanctions the activity going on. If I have a cab that's painted with the markings of the company I franchise with a passenger that hails me assumes that the ride is sanctioned by the company. You should have no such expectation about Uber. If you use the app, anything you do should be covered by Uber BUT if you privately contract with the driver a reasonable person would understand that they are cutting Uber out of the picture. Similar call in my mind if you get into a different car, it's the consumers responsibility to verify that it's the right car.
> 
> It's also unreasonable to assume that if I'm not logged into the app and I decide to plow through a farmers market and kill a dozen people that Uber has no responsibility in that case. If I'm logged into the app when I do that, that's a great question for the courts to answer, I have no idea. This is what makes the law fun, it's complicated stuff.


You are right.
You are no lawyer.


----------



## Macdiggity (Feb 7, 2016)

Papa said:


> Unfortunately that's not how it works. In fact...it wouldn't surprise me if the checking company was not a subsidiary or shell of Uber's. Say what you will, these guys are smart as hell. I don't like the way they operate, but I surely respect their game. They are smart, quick, and very strategic in every action. As drivers, we must do the same...when it no longer works, move on.
> 
> But, please don't be a slave to it.....................


It's not a subsidiary of uber. The background check company is the same one that grub hub uses to sign it's drivers, checkr or w.e has been in business much longer than uber.


----------



## david 1269 (Apr 9, 2016)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


its like a pimp if the hooker slashes a patron-font blame the pimp!!!!


----------



## tommyboy (Mar 10, 2016)

How about the agency providing the background checks. What is there degree of responsibility. What if it's the FBI are they more libel than uber. Not easy questions. How about a partner that scams his way in. Or a partner just handing his app over to a friend or selling the app.So many grey areas in defining what uber truly is.All we really know now is its a great idea hopefully a great idea in the right hands.My bet is they will prevail when it's all sorted out


----------



## tommyboy (Mar 10, 2016)

In some respects the passengers are hitchhikers with a cell phone and a credit card


----------



## tommyboy (Mar 10, 2016)

Think about it uber not offering a ride the client is asking for a ride by indicating there location and desire uber is providing a safer method of facilitating the transaction. What degree of due diligence should be required on there part if any at all.Boy if the customers ever thought of themselves as hitchhikers the ones with high and mighty attitudes might change there posture somewhat. Really though the passengers I've had have been great overall.That why I like driving


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Two legal principal that will come into play in this case:
The first principal is Duty Of Care. This is the principal that the judge cited at the bottom of the article. The common carrier can be held liable if it can be shown that there was negligence on the part of the carrier that resulted in injury or loss. Although Uber is arguing that it is not a common carrier, courts have declared that amusement parks are common carriers and have a greater obligation to customers of their amusement rides. I think there might be sufficient evidence about Uber's hiring practices that created undue risk for its passenger clients.

The second issue is “ostensible employee,”. This is what snagged Yellow Cab last year in an $8 million liability award."The jury reasoned that a passenger who gets into a Yellow Cab assumes that there is a company that backs up the cab and the driver."

An attorney might also argue if someone hires an Uber car with the ap off, that passenger would have an reasonable expectation of a higher level or safety and security than a non Uber Driver. They might assume that since the car is an Uber car, that it is properly insured and that Uber has screened the driver and certified the safety aspect.


----------



## tommyboy (Mar 10, 2016)

Uber doesn't own the cars. Isn't it necessary to own or have some legally binding contract enforce that implies ownership to be considered a common carrier. I'm no lawyer obviously but wouldn't that aspect of the relationship be considered


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Nope.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Hey guys, just quit driving for Uber. You'll sleep better at night than spending all day trying to find out what uber is liable for


----------



## secretadmirer (Jul 19, 2015)

Don't worry, we'll find something. Uber brings their problems on themselves. If they just followed the rules.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Just_in said:


> You sure shake your head a lot.
> 
> I'm taking it as you don't understand..


POST # 53/Just_in : G-G-G-GOOD ONE !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

DriverX said:


> good eye, you're absolutely right, they call the Uber drivers. What do they call cabbies? oh right, I just said it CABBIES, see how's there is no company affiliation. You don't ever call them your Yellow Cabbie or or Orange Cab driver do you?
> 
> Yes when in doubt blame Uber first and you will correct 99% of the time. Perhaps you can find another forum where all the drivers blame themselves and stroke TKs pony all day, chomping at the bit for minimum 1x fares.
> 
> ...


POST # 64/DriverX: There is "No There"
THERE !
Lotsa photos of Taxi Cab lines, presu-
mably at an Airport somewhere.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

ubershiza said:


> View attachment 34941


POST # 84/ubershiza: Sad....but SO true!


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Disgusted Driver said:


> Your attorney will sue everyone who might have money to pay, will name at least Time Warner and the contractor.
> 
> Fast forward to Uber. The pax thinks they are contracting with Uber. They order a ride through the Uber app, pay Uber, complain to Uber if there's a problem that needs resolution and they rely upon Uber's promise of Safety when they paid the trust and safety fee. Uber claims they check and vet their drivers, I'm thinking that alone will make them liable.
> 
> If I were a betting man I think that they will be found liable in at least the case where the ride was on app.


The lawyers always look for the proverbial "deep pockets", which, in the hypothetical case, would be Time-Warner. Odds are that the cable installer has little, if anything that any court could attach. Perhaps the contractor has a beat up van and a few hundred dollars worth of tools, but that would be about it. Time-Warner has millions.

For an on-aplication ride, yes; off application: doubtful. Remember, the UberX cars bear private car licence plates. Here, at least, for purposes of enforcement of things such as seat belt laws, the Law treats them as a private car, not a taxi, limousine or jitney.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I think the interesting point in the legal arguments is that if they are ONLY a transportation facilitator then how can they argue they have no responsibility when the app is not on, since it can be used at any time?


The difference is that the UberX car carries private car plates. There _*might*_ (note the stressed word, please) be an avenue if the UberX cars bore commercial, livery or H-plates, but when that application is off and logged out, you are just another motorist. If I am driving to the grocery store in my UberX car, have the application off and logged out, get into a traffic argument with another motorist, rear end him deliberately at the next red light, Uber is not responsible.



Ziggy said:


> OR it wants to pick and choose the laws that it will abide by.
> 
> everyone seems to forget ... that Uber operated illegally in most, if not all, cities until they were able to either lobby, force or browbeat the local officials


It always has done that while urging, behind the scenes, mind you, that there be more regulation for its competition.

You forgot to add "made 'arrangements' " to your list of what they did [to] "local officials"



backstreets-trans said:


> Another factor to consider is the double standard where taxi companies are held liable while uber thinks it shouldn't be.


Uber's business model demands double standards and ignoring laws.

T. Kalanick testified before the D.C. City Council in Uber's early days in Washington. One of the Councilmember's asked him about Uber's providing wheelchair accessible transportation (a pet cause for D.C. Officials over the past few years). The first words out of Mr. Kalanick's mouth were: "You need to look to the taxicab industry for that......................."



ChortlingCrison said:


> I guess uber thinks a "panic" button will solve all the safety concerns.


..........as does the D.C. Taxicab Commission. There is one thing on which the two agree. There is not much on which those two agree.



Bart McCoy said:


> There are 2 cases in this story. One with app on and another with a woman basically hitchhiking a ride from a man on his spare time. YOu saying Uber is still liable for what its drivers do all the time off-duty with the app off as well?


Therein is the rub. Application OFF, LOGGED OUT and SIGNED OUT you are just another motorist. If I deliberately run my UberX car through the front window of the Connecticut Avenue Burger King because I am angry that they put catsup on my hamburger when I told them not to, Uber can not be held responsible for that. (Not that I would do that over catsup, mind you. I do not like catsup, but it would not be worth running a car through a front window over it.......now, if they put mayonnaise on it, maybe, but catsup? nawwwwwwwwwwwww.............)



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Sigh.
> Bart, we have covered this.
> If a cab owner op disobeys the law off duty in his cab, the company he franchises with always gets named in the case.
> An Uber owner op is no different.
> ...


TwoFiddyMile, I do not like disagreeing with you. All respect to you always, but it does not work that way up here. If I smash my taxi through the front window of the Connecticut Avenue Burger King for putting mayonnaise on my hamburger while OFF DUTY, there is nothing that anyone can do to Capitol/District Cab. ON DUTY is a different animal, but even that has its limits. There was a road rage case, here, where a Yellow Cab Company ("Yellow" is just the name of another cab company, here) driver was ON DUTY, got into an argument with someone at Georgetown Hospital. The cab driver pulled a pistol from under his front seat and shot the other driver and killed him. The deceased driver's family tried to sue Yellow Cab, but the judge threw it out. While the judge did agree that there were cases in which the companies are responsible for the misdeeds of their drivers, this was not one such case. The plaintiffs were wasting their time, as it was. Yellow Cab ownership is in so much debt to its Principal Creditor that the Ownership owes said Creditor to the Fourth Generation.

Now, had it been a passenger that the driver had shot, that would have been different.

If a driver refuses to transport a prospective passenger, the company can be, and has been, held liable or at least responsible.

When I was an Official of a cab company, we had more than a few drivers who were involved in collisions with their taxis while OFF DUTY. Of course, the opposing attorney(s) always named the cab company. Once we demonstrated that the driver was OFF DUTY at the time of the collision, we always were let out of the case. The one exception to this was if the company owned the vehicle or had its name as a co-owner on the registration (there was a residency controversy a few years back that caused some drivers to do this with their cabs, but that is way off topic, here). In that case, as the owner or legal "co-owner" of the vehicle, the company could be brought in. Of course, once the opposing lawyer found out that a 1930s Colorado Short Line had a better looking balance sheet than did my company, they lost interest in the cab company and were interested only in what were the policy limits.

What might be worth considering, as well, is that if you are application OFF, LOGGED OUT and SIGNED OUT, but still showing the Trade Dress..............................................


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

The US needs much stronger Unions. It's obvious what happens without them, you have a bunch of Gordon Gekko types running around exploiting everything in their path, getting a sociopathic thrill out of how many laws and regulations they can bribe their way out of. It doesn't stop until someone stops it. I'll be voting for Bernie, even if it's a write-in.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Ugh uber.

Uber is arguing that it merely is a connector of sorts. They don't provide a service, they don't have employees (outside their corporate buildings/offices) BUT, the way they represent themselves, folks perceive uber as the force behind its drivers and not merely a platform for independent folks to use (although it's modeled as such).

Because it's not like craigslist, that just sits there and allows users (employers) to go on and pay a flat fee to place an ad up so that other users (job seekers) can go on and browse the pages for a job. 

Other places that are true platform, eBay.

When folks have a problem on the site, transactional wise, they most likely wouldn't sue craigslist or eBay, but will go after the individual that they interacted with.

If, uber had taken the time early on, to advertise itself or market itself in a way so that folks understand, they're a "platform" for drivers and riders to connect, instead of an app that provides "your personal driver" <-sounds like a service to me.

But hey, this is just my interpretation.

Maybe if uber simply leases their app and the usage to charge a flat monthly or weekly fee, instead of taking a percentage from every ride AND the rider fee. Perhaps, if they advertise it as a way to connect with local folks who have a car (and has passed a background check)...


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> You forgot to add "made 'arrangements' " to your list of what they did [to] "local officials"


oops ... forgot about the few bribery scandals


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The lawyers always look for the proverbial "deep pockets", which, in the hypothetical case, would be Time-Warner. Odds are that the cable installer has little, if anything that any court could attach. Perhaps the contractor has a beat up van and a few hundred dollars worth of tools, but that would be about it. Time-Warner has millions.
> 
> For an on-aplication ride, yes; off application: doubtful. Remember, the UberX cars bear private car licence plates. Here, at least, for purposes of enforcement of things such as seat belt laws, the Law treats them as a private car, not a taxi, limousine or jitney.
> 
> ...


I agree on the clarification that "yellow cab co." Would be NAMED in a suit, yet the suit would not likely hold water.
You and I have both spent thousands of hours manning phones with disgruntled taxi pax whom all seem to yell "ill SUE you and Own Yellow Cab Co you @#$%!".

The point I wasattempting to make was Yellow Cab Co will have to go through the ringer due to ASSOCIATION with the owner op.

Trust me, i wish i were still in a slightly higher tax bracket. Ive taken my Acme Cab on vacation and wasnt comfortable with the potential liability of something gone wrong and the heat my cab association would be under, and blame me for.
I wish i had a 2015 Honda Odyssey with private plates for my personal use.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Hackenstein said:


> The US needs much stronger Unions. It's obvious what happens without them, you have a bunch of Gordon Gekko types running around exploiting everything in their path, getting a sociopathic thrill out of how many laws and regulations they can bribe their way out of. It doesn't stop until someone stops it. I'll be voting for Bernie, even if it's a write-in.


POST #:112/Hackenstein: I'm with you
110%, Sir ! The 
way Primaries have gone for the SNL
Guest Star, you MAY NOT need to do
a "Write In".


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Thank you Another Uber Driver , I knew I wasnt crazy. For folks Saying Uber is liable for all its Uber drivers even when they are on their own time, off duty, and app off. Like you said, they are just another motorist . But TwoFiddyMile still claims an uber (personal) car is the same as a cab driver and Uber bears responsiblity regardles if app is on or off, smh


----------



## secretadmirer (Jul 19, 2015)

We thought you gave up on uber. When the app is on, they represent uber. It's that simple.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

secretadmirer said:


> We thought you gave up on uber. When the app is on, they represent uber. It's that simple.


Great point!

Too bad nobody debated that though,smh.Otherwise you would have won the argument!!!! Lol


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The lawyers always look for the proverbial "deep pockets", which, in the hypothetical case, would be Time-Warner. Odds are that the cable installer has little, if anything that any court could attach. Perhaps the contractor has a beat up van and a few hundred dollars worth of tools, but that would be about it. Time-Warner has millions.
> 
> For an on-aplication ride, yes; off application: doubtful. Remember, the UberX cars bear private car licence plates. Here, at least, for purposes of enforcement of things such as seat belt laws, the Law treats them as a private car, not a taxi, limousine or jitney.
> 
> ...


In some areas there is signage indicating you are a rideshare vehicle and it us not removed off app. For instance, in Houston you are required to display the trade dress, but can take it down off app. However, the vehicle permit is permanently affixed to the windshield by the city (barring scraping it off). Nowhere does the city say you can't leave the trade dress on while off app. If I decide it's slow and I'm heading home off app but don't take the trade dress down, or do, but still have the sticker (which is ALWAYS there) what then?

Also, how would someone I hit know if I'm on or off app? Having the sticker and even the trade dress up means nothing, other than I MIGHT be on app?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> In some areas there is signage indicating you are a rideshare vehicle and it us not removed off app. For instance, in Houston you are required to display the trade dress, but can take it down off app. However, the vehicle permit is permanently affixed to the windshield by the city (barring scraping it off). Nowhere does the city say you can't leave the trade dress on while off app. If I decide it's slow and I'm heading home off app but don't take the trade dress down, or do, but still have the sticker (which is ALWAYS there) what then?
> 
> Also, how would someone I hit know if I'm on or off app? Having the sticker and even the trade dress up means nothing, other than I MIGHT be on app?


Also NYC, where the vehicle needsto be a licensed TLC vehicle.


----------



## secretadmirer (Jul 19, 2015)

You have to give Bart credit on his tenacity for defending uber. Hopefully someday he'll see the light before the ubership sinks deep into the mariana trench.


----------



## Kruhn (Sep 24, 2015)

backstreets-trans said:


> I like this part "Uber charged patrons a "safe ride" fee until recently". Exactly, it was called a safe ride fee until they found out that they weren't providing safe rides. Now it's called a booking fee. I think they lost a lawsuit with the safe ride fee language along with advertising that they provided the safest rides in the industry.
> 
> https://consumerist.com/2016/02/12/...ions-it-misled-customers-on-safety-practices/


Uber always gets its pound of flesh! So now instead of a safety fee, we call it a booking fee and plus the 25% commission, and in the words of Max Biallenstock "We can do it!"








backstreets-trans said:


> They'll need trillions to pay off all the lawyers and lawsuits. I would like to know how much has already been spent on legal fees.


According to Travis it starts with "Nonya" and ends "damned business". LOL.

I'd be curious to know, too!


----------



## Kruhn (Sep 24, 2015)

Ziggy said:


> trickynikki ... I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I don't care how hard it is for Uber to recruit drivers ... as currently anyone with a pulse is accepted onto the platform in most localities. It's a shame that we have to get more regulations on the books to force companies to be good neighbors; because clearly some companies, like Uber would be happy as a clam raping & pillaging until there was nothing left but scorched earth. Clearly, Uber doesn't care about their pax ... because if they did they'd adopt best safety practices (like fingerprints, interview drivers, etc); stop hiring drivers sight unseen; etc. The marketplace is prime for some solid competition that provide better than Uber service, safety, support, drivers.


I guess Uber is the perfect example why those pesky regulations are in place. We hate Big Government until a Big Corporation misbehaves and then you have to face their roadblocks trying to avoid accepting responsibilities for their actions.


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Ugh uber.
> 
> Uber is arguing that it merely is a connector of sorts. They don't provide a service, they don't have employees (outside their corporate buildings/offices) BUT, the way they represent themselves, folks perceive uber as the force behind its drivers and not merely a platform for independent folks to use (although it's modeled as such).
> 
> ...


Last year when Uber appeared in court and said that Uber is only a tech company that acts between a driver and passenger. The judge asked "Then you give free rides?"

The public thinks Uber is a taxi company. Uber makes money from each ride. Uber controls each of their drivers. It is far different if I use Craigslist for offering my services. Craigslist is not involved with a transaction as it is only a facilitator. Uber is clearly a broker.

Uber will be out of business in the near future. Peop,e are willing to pay more if the service is good and the companies screen their drivers. This is good news for taxi companies because they are the ones that can develop a new service to go along side their existing ones. Making 25 or 30 off of each fare is a huge profit for a taxi company as they make less than that off of the taxis. I envision that there will be a national app which will work in every city to connect with a ride hail that is standardized and regulated but under local management in every juristriction. The cab companies know how to do things. Now that restrictions are relaxed, this is actually good news for them and bad for Uber.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

U realize I'm saying the same essentially with in regards to uber and craigslist right? I even threw in eBay

???

trickynikki

ETA maybe I shoulda put quotes around, "because it's not like craigslist"


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

Right you are. I was only mentioning Craigslist as defenders of Uber policy try to use that argument. I'm with you all the but it was not about your post. Uber drivers all mostly in agreement that the way Uber operates is going to bring it down. Customers like it because the can feel like a pimp with an app and get cheap rides. Peace.


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

Looks like those people in Canada sue know how to deal with Uber. Uber type services became legal in Edmonton last month, and guess what? Uber backed it in because one the condition of insurance. Even without insurance, Uber asked to be allowed to operate until the insurance policy is ready. So while Uber spent time on money getting laws changed they ended up getting scooped by a new player. And I think the newer rivals won't offer such cheap rides as Uber or the flexibility of Uber, it will however be a better choice for drivers and riders. Clearly the Uber model doesn't work within the realm of regulations and accountability. People soon wake up to what they get for their money. 
Please guys, check out these guys as we might all be working for a company like them very soon.

http://www.geektime.com/2016/04/10/...g-taxi-advocate-to-create-competitor-tappcar/


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> Well the theme in this forum clearly is to NEVER blame the driver (partner), always blame Uber for the idiotic actions of the driver done by free will.


Once again, you miss the point - as you always seem to when it comes to Uber.
A company that engages millions of people to provide transportation to individuals IS responsible for the actions of the people it CHOOSES to give access to the app. It is Uber's CHOICE not to have driver applicants (or riders for that matter) meet with another human being to be evaluated by a professional. It is Uber's CHOICE to let a user rating system be the first and only 'red flag' about a bad driver, creepy person or unsafe vehicle... a CHOICE by Uber to evaluate these things only AFTER a driver is activated and provided access to the app - and the public.

That was and remains the Achilles heel of Uber's argument that it is only a tech company: On the one hand they claim they are a tech company, but on the other they exert control over who can access the app. It's a catch 22 that they cannot win in the long run: either they have control over who they allow to access the apps (as they do now), or they don't have that control.

Since Uber has already demonstrated that they DO have that control, both before a driver is given access - and afterwards, through performance reviews (rider comments, ratings, acceptance rates, etc.) then UBer IS, to a large degree, responsible for the actions of its drivers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

trickynikki said:


> Please guys, check out these guys as we might all be working for a company like them very soon.
> http://www.geektime.com/2016/04/10/...g-taxi-advocate-to-create-competitor-tappcar/


hehe... nothing that can't be quashed with a 50% undercutting of fares by Uber when they re-enter the market.


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

I think Uber is going to have further problems in jurisdictions in Canada. Ottawa is insisting on 5 mill on insurance.


----------



## Bart McCoy (Nov 4, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Once again, you miss the point - as you always seem to when it comes to Uber.
> A company that engages millions of people to provide transportation to individuals IS responsible for the actions of the people it CHOOSES to give access to the app. It is Uber's CHOICE not to have driver applicants (or riders for that matter) meet with another human being to be evaluated by a professional. It is Uber's CHOICE to let a user rating system be the first and only 'red flag' about a bad driver, creepy person or unsafe vehicle... a CHOICE by Uber to evaluate these things only AFTER a driver is activated and provided access to the app - and the public.
> 
> That was and remains the Achilles heel of Uber's argument that it is only a tech company: On the one hand they claim they are a tech company, but on the other they exert control over who can access the app. It's a catch 22 that they cannot win in the long run: either they have control over who they allow to access the apps (as they do now), or they don't have that control.
> ...


They say I always defend Uber, but do you ever get tired of always coming on the forum to complain and pout about Uber day after day after day? Did you notice that Uber continues to skirt regulations and do what they want to do regardless of what you and others think? Smh


----------



## trickynikki (Oct 26, 2015)

Some have grown tired of your constant defense of Uber. I just think it's just playing devils advocate so I do read what you say as I do appreciate opposing opinions. 

It is not about Uber being at fault when tragic incidents occur. It's about the onus of responsibility and accountability. It's not just about background checks that should be thorough. It's about how Uber puts a driver in a position of trust and the assumption of safety of passengers. Uber insists that it is only a tech company but passengers regard it as a taxi service and this is the real problem. Then we have the constant plug from Uber that says they are safer than taxis. Uber has control of drivers and gives consent to the people who drive for them. With that, Uber has placed themselves in a position of liability. Sure they can say what they want and have agreements with drivers and passengers that would absolve them but the law doesn't work that way. When you engage in such activities that put people at risk you are still held accountable. 

We are just now seeing some settlements with Uber and there are going to be many more. Their reckless behaviour is going to tie them up in courts for the next 10 years. You will see a sudden deterioration in investment this year and protests from most of the drivers. There will be new players who might not be a business savy as Uber but it will be local and part of the communities in which they operate. And most importantly, they will abide by laws and not be known as liars. Ubers biggest downfall, other than treating their drivers like shit, is that what they do in one place effects their image as a whole. Not a day goes by that there is not one story of an Uber driver or an Uber exec doing something stupid or crimminal.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Bart McCoy said:


> They say I always defend Uber, but do you ever get tired of always coming on the forum to complain and pout about Uber day after day after day? Did you notice that Uber continues to skirt regulations and do what they want to do regardless of what you and others think? Smh


talk about the pot calling the kettle black - don't you ever get tired of coming on here bashing people's venting about the things that they personally do not like about Uber? If you follow my posts, you know that I point out both the good, the bad and the ugly. Of late, it seems your posts are less than constructive.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Uber's Denial of Blame for Sex Attacks Fails to Kill Lawsuit*
*http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...aims-by-women-for-alleged-driver-sex-assaults*


----------



## Ca$h4 (Aug 12, 2015)

*"It matters not whether Uber's licensing agreements label drivers as independent contractors, if their conduct suggests otherwise,"*

*Uber Can't Shake 'Jane Doe' Rape Suit *

Ross Todd, The Recorder
May 5, 2016 | 0 Comments 









U.S. District Senior Judge Susan Illston, Northern District of California
Jason Doiy / The Recorder
SAN FRANCISCO - Uber Technologies Inc. won't be able to turn to its customary defense to duck a lawsuit brought by two women who say they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

Uber played what has become its standard card in trying to quickly junk civil suits-insisting that the drivers were independent contractors and that the company shouldn't be held liable for their actions. Uber's lawyer, Josh Cohen of Clarence, Dyer & Cohen, also had argued that his client is a "broker" of transportation services rather than a common carrier that can be held vicariously liable for the actions of workers.

But U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on Wednesday rejected those arguments and denied Uber's early bid to dismiss the suit in a 19-page order. "It matters not whether Uber's licensing agreements label drivers as independent contractors, if their conduct suggests otherwise," she wrote.

The judge, however, pointed out that the employment status of Uber drivers presents a question that is fact-intensive-a conclusion that puts Illston's thinking on the issue in line with her Northern District colleagues Edward Chen and Vince Chhabria, who are overseeing employment class actions against Uber and its rival Lyft Inc. Illston wrote that the facts of the case could "tilt the scales toward a finding that Uber drivers are independent contractors."

An Uber spokesman declined to comment on the ruling. The company has vigorously maintained that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees. Earlier this month, the company agreed to pay at least $84 million to settle a wage and tip suit on behalf of drivers but did not change their designation as independent contractors. The two Jane Doe plaintiffs, represented by Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, sued Uber in October. The driver in the Boston attack, Abderrahim Dakiri, was convicted in February of assault and battery, and sentenced to two years probation.

The second plaintiff claims that she was "viciously" raped by Charleston, South Carolina, Uber driver Patrick Aiello in August 2015. The woman claims Aiello drove her to a secluded parking lot after dropping off her friend. His criminal case is pending.

Illston dismissed a negligent hiring claim in regards Dakiri, but did so without prejudice. Plaintiffs had alleged that Uber's background checks, which tracked seven years of public records, failed to turn up a previous domestic violence conviction for Aiello, but made no similar allegation about Dakiri.

In a phone interview Thursday, Christensen said with the case moving to discovery, the plaintiffs could still turn up information about Dakiri that Uber should have known and amend the complaint. Christensen said that it was important for her clients that Illston recognized that assaults such as these show why customers would expect Uber to thoroughly vet drivers.

"If they truly value this then why are they skimping on the background checks?" Christensen said. "We're looking forward to taking the next steps and getting documents," she said

_Contact the reporter at [email protected]._


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

chi1cabby said:


> *Uber's Denial of Blame for Sex Attacks Fails to Kill Lawsuit **http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/uber-must-face-claims-by-women-for-alleged-driver-sex-assaults*


*The 19 page order denying dismissal* is fascinating reading, touching on many of the issues we talk about here.


----------

