# Jury awards $46M to man who lost leg in Nissan driver crash



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Nissan argued no negligence because driver was a Independent Contractor, apparently the jury called BS on that and awarded a bundle. THis IS a huge nail in the coffin for Uber. Precedence has been set.

It might not result in any change in how Uber is being allowed to operate in the short term, BUT the valuation of a company that is being allowed to skirt the law by using IC's to avoid responsibility should take a HUGE hit.

http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/...ost-leg-in-Nissan-driver-crash-389831742.html


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

How does this effect Uber?


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

There's no doubt that the IC dodge is BS but this award will never hold up. 46Mil is an over the top award. Many of these big awards get reduced on appeal, the newspapers neglect to report on that.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Disgusted Driver said:


> There's no doubt that the IC dodge is BS but this award will never hold up. 46Mil is an over the top award. Many of these big awards get reduced on appeal, the newspapers neglect to report on that.


It's not about the award amount, although the bigger the number the better, hte importance of the lawsuit is the precedence that is being set. All judicial decisions are based on precedence. This clearly holds the company that hired the contractor liable for that contractors actions just like they would be held liable if the driver was an employee. It could be the biggest hit to Uber and Lyft yet. As California goes the rest of the nation follows.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

Brooklyn said:


> How does this effect Uber?


Uber uses Independent Contractors so they can avoid liability.

Tax liability
Damage/Injury liability

As a driver I could use this precedence as an argument for Uber being liable to repair my car if it is in an accident while on a trip, regardless of any insurance offered or not offered. So effectively you don't need collision insurance to demand repairs and Ubers deductible is a moot point. Just lawyer up and sue for property replacement costs, injuries sustained, loss of wages due to inability to work.

This is a gold mine for lawyers looking to sue Uber, and when a company has the kind of VC money Uber does, the lawyers are circling like vultures.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

DriverX said:


> It's not about the award amount, although the bigger the number the better, hte importance of the lawsuit is the precedence that is being set. All judicial decisions are based on precedence. This clearly holds the company that hired the contractor liable for that contractors actions just like they would be held liable if the driver was an employee. It could be the biggest hit to Uber and Lyft yet. *As California goes the rest of the nation follows.*


That last line is truly hilarious. Cali legal action is the laugh track for the rest of the country.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

m1a1mg said:


> That last line is truly hilarious. Cali legal action is the laugh track for the rest of the country.


Who banned smoking first?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

Practically every new fad or trending style comes from California. It's the worlds marketing department.

Where do you think driverless cars, solar energy, and electric vehicles are being developed? China?? or Texass maybe?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

DriverX said:


> It's not about the award amount, although the bigger the number the better, hte importance of the lawsuit is the precedence that is being set. All judicial decisions are based on precedence. This clearly holds the company that hired the contractor liable for that contractors actions just like they would be held liable if the driver was an employee. It could be the biggest hit to Uber and Lyft yet. As California goes the rest of the nation follows.


Time to develop a " matrix" company.

Uber needs a shell.

The James River contract driver management company.

Will only cost you an additional 25%.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Of course,Razer industries and Uber are separate entities . . .


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

DriverX said:


> Nissan argued no negligence because driver was a Independent Contractor, apparently the jury called BS on that and awarded a bundle. THis IS a huge nail in the coffin for Uber. Precedence has been set.
> 
> It might not result in any change in how Uber is being allowed to operate in the short term, BUT the valuation of a company that is being allowed to skirt the law by using IC's to avoid responsibility should take a HUGE hit.
> 
> http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/...ost-leg-in-Nissan-driver-crash-389831742.html


Doesn't change your story, but FYI- "precedent" is the word you want for legal proceedings. Precedence refers to order of importance. For example, you need gas but you're really desperate to relieve yourself, which do you do first at the station?


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

DriverX said:


> Who banned smoking first?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States
> 
> ...


You spoke of legal precedent established by courts, then talked about laws and silly stuff.


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

very asstute


----------



## DriverX (Aug 5, 2015)

m1a1mg said:


> You spoke of legal precedent established by courts, then talked about laws and silly stuff.


yes legal precedent would be regarding laws, and I mentioned a law and provided a reference. but ok if you want to be a funny guy as a way to back off your statement thats cool.


----------



## drexl_s (May 20, 2016)

DriverX said:


> Nissan argued no negligence because driver was a Independent Contractor, apparently the jury called BS on that and awarded a bundle. THis IS a huge nail in the coffin for Uber. Precedence has been set.
> 
> It might not result in any change in how Uber is being allowed to operate in the short term, BUT the valuation of a company that is being allowed to skirt the law by using IC's to avoid responsibility should take a HUGE hit.
> 
> http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/...ost-leg-in-Nissan-driver-crash-389831742.html


I saw no mention of ic in the article, can you post link to the other article you read?


----------



## drexl_s (May 20, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Of course,Razer industries and Uber are separate entities . . .


Negligence does not protect uber by using llc aka razer.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

DriverX said:


> yes legal precedent would be regarding laws, and I mentioned a law and provided a reference. but ok if you want to be a funny guy as a way to back off your statement thats cool.


No I'm not backing away from anything, legal precedent would be a new interpretation of the law. This is simply, in keeping with California lawsuits, an extraordinary amount awarded by a jury that will be overturned on appeal. It does not effect what juries will offer in other parts of the country, nor will it have any effect on business actions. You're so hell bent on Uber failure, you can't deal with reality.

Seriously, get a clue. I many parts of the US, people want to do exactly the opposite of what California does.


----------



## Vegas E (Mar 11, 2016)

m1a1mg said:


> No I'm not backing away from anything, legal precedent would be a new interpretation of the law. This is simply, in keeping with California lawsuits, an extraordinary amount awarded by a jury that will be overturned on appeal. It does not effect what juries will offer in other parts of the country, nor will it have any effect on business actions. You're so hell bent on Uber failure, you can't deal with reality.
> 
> Seriously, get a clue. I many parts of the US, people want to do exactly the opposite of what California does.


It doesn't really matter if a jury in the future agrees with the jury who set the precedent, if a case has a chance to go to court and they might lose, Uber will settle. I believe what the original poster intended to say was that once a legal precedence has been set, it is very difficult to reverse. Like it or not we are all in the same country. A case in one state can be used as precedence for a case in another state unless...there are laws protecting the corporations from crazy verdicts like this. Next door in Nevada the max allowed for punitive damages is 300,000$ unless criminal negligence can be proven (ie.conviction).


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

It has not been set in any way in regards to Uber.

1. It's Kalifornia. Famous for ridiculous jury awards that are never paid. It sets precedent for nothing but Kalifornia. 
2. The minimal article does not specify who owned the delivery vehicle being used.
3. FedEx has had similar issues with ICs because they were still driving FedEx vehicles. You driving an Uber vehicle?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

http://asianjournal.com/consumer/ar...eir-independent-contractors-injure-consumers/


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

In California a lot of not so smart dealerships have taken to hiring guys with pick up trucks to make deliveries for them. They want to avoid hiring employees, maintenance on vehicles and insurance costs (sound familiar?). 

I happen to work in the parts biz and have seen this first hand.


----------



## m1a1mg (Oct 22, 2015)

Thanks for the link.

This blew my mind: _ON September 10, 2013, 53-year-old Faustino Solorio was a pedestrian standing on the shoulder of the road behind the tailgate of a truck. At this same exact time, 18 year-old Gunnar Ayala was driving his father's car, _*having just finished his shift as a delivery driver for Nissan of San Bernardino.
*
That makes absolutely no sense at all. I guarantee this will be appealed all the way to the Cali Supreme Court. It's stupid, even by California standards.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

m1a1mg said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> This blew my mind: _ON September 10, 2013, 53-year-old Faustino Solorio was a pedestrian standing on the shoulder of the road behind the tailgate of a truck. At this same exact time, 18 year-old Gunnar Ayala was driving his father's car, _*having just finished his shift as a delivery driver for Nissan of San Bernardino.
> *
> That makes absolutely no sense at all. I guarantee this will be appealed all the way to the Cali Supreme Court. It's stupid, even by California standards.


I saw that too, was wondering about it. I couldn't find anything that had time of day. Just because they said he was on way home doesn't necessarily make it true. It may have been a tactic used to push off the liability on to his personal insurance. We don't have enough information but looks like the jury did and decided against the Nissan dealership.


----------

