Law Couple in a severe Uber crash can’t sue because of an Uber Eats order - Uber is enforcing its terms of service.

1.png
Uber is enforcing its terms of service.
Andrej Sokolow/picture-alliance/dpa/AP


A married New Jersey couple that was in a severe accident during an Uber ride can’t sue the company because they and their daughter agreed to arbitration when they accepted the terms of service for a separate Uber Eats order, a court has ruled.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were sitting in the back seat of an Uber ride in March 2022 when the driver sped through a red light and was T-boned by another car resulting in “serious physical, psychological, and financial damages,” a filing said.

Georgia sustained several fractures throughout her body, including cervical, lumbar, spine and rib fractures and other physical injuries that required surgeries and other procedures. Meanwhile, John has diminished use of his left wrist and a fractured sternum.

They tried taking Uber to court for a jury trial, but an appellate court recently ruled they can’t because they previously agreed to Uber’s updated terms and conditions requiring arbitration, which are the same in the Uber Eats and Uber ride app.

The couple said it was their minor daughter using Georgia’s phone who agreed to Uber Eats’ terms of service clicking a button that verified she was 18 years old, but an appellate court said that the company’s terms are “valid and enforceable” and that they include an acknowledgement that “disputes concerning auto accidents or personal injuries, will be resolved through binding arbitration ‘and not in a court of law.’”

Uber, in response, told CNN that Georgia McGinty “agreed to Uber’s terms of use, including the arbitration agreement, on multiple occasions,” including in early 2021 and took Uber rides after agreeing to those terms.

“While the plaintiffs continue to tell the press that it was their daughter who ordered Uber Eats and accepted the terms of use, it’s worth noting that in court they could only ‘surmise’ that that was the case but could not recall whether ‘their daughter ordered food independently or if Georgia assisted,’” an Uber spokesperson said.

The McGintys said in a statement to CNN that they’re “surprised and heartbroken” and that the appellate court’s decision has “exacerbated the pain and suffering we’ve experienced since the collision.”

“We are horrified at what the court’s decision suggests: A large corporation like Uber can avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries,” the McGintys said.

Prior to this most recent ruling in September, a lower court said Uber’s arbitration clause wasn’t enforceable because the pop-up with the terms of service “fail[ed] to clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum.”

Uber appealed that decision, and the judges agreed with the company that its terms of services were enforceable.

The McGinty’s attorneys told CNN they’re reviewing the decision and will “likely” petition the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Anger over arbitration​

It’s the latest case that highlights the intricacies of the terms of services having binding arbitration agreements that users agree to with many companies. In August, Disney reversed course on a dispute over terms of service in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widower of a woman who died after eating at a resort restaurant, saying the matter can now proceed to court.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo alleged that his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction from a meal she ate at a park restaurant in 2023. But Disney tried to get the lawsuit tossed by asking the court to move the dispute to arbitration, meaning the case would not go before a jury or otherwise continue in court.

Disney’s argument was that Piccolo had allegedly entered into a subscriber agreement when signing up for a Disney+ trial years ago that requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. However, the company changed its position.

“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, said in a previous statement.

Article Link

Archive
 
Except there’s a driver who’s criminally negligent here. So why are they going after Uber when it’s the driver who’s liable?
Because the driver's a Uber employee and this is a work-related accident, I suppose, that would make the company legally liable to an extent as well
 
At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,”
"We have decided to give you permission to fight us for 8 to 15 years to get the money you deserve from us"

Ah how thoughtful Disney, who said mega corps are all evil.

They aren't even protecting their own money they are defending against an extra 700 dollars a month on their 20 million a month insurance premium
 
Except there’s a driver who’s criminally negligent here. So why are they going after Uber when it’s the driver who’s liable?
Because the driver's a Uber employee and this is a work-related accident, I suppose, that would make the company legally liable to an extent as well
They’re not employees.
I think in this scenario the couple is suing everyone involved to get a handout of something.

Uber can shield themselves from some of the liability because the driver is technically a contractor and should be responsible for his own insurance etc., but forcing them through BA because someone, somewhere, agreed to their EULA is scummy.
 
Uber can shield themselves from some of the liability because the driver is technically a contractor and should be responsible for his own insurance etc., but forcing them through BA because someone, somewhere, agreed to their EULA is scummy.
Uber is still liable, any contract you sign with a real company requires you to provide real insurance for real dollar amounts of coverage. They are just making an exception for ride share companies because they are successful.
 
This is literally the whole " woman dies from food poisoning in Disneyland and can't sue Disney due to having a Disney+ subscription" all over again!
It was actually even worse, she ate at a restaurant that was advertised as good for allergens, specifically ordered her food without allergens, was reassured when it arrived that it didn't have allergens. Guess what it had in it.

Actually shocked it took such a short amount of time for another company to pull this shit. If people don't get mad about this NOW it's just gonna get worse.
 
The Disney guy has a case for sure. Its as big as me going after Disney.

The uber case....if they truly can't sue the company, wouldn't the best course of action be to sue the driver? They probably should have sued him first.
 
I think in this scenario the couple is suing everyone involved to get a handout of something.

Uber can shield themselves from some of the liability because the driver is technically a contractor and should be responsible for his own insurance etc., but forcing them through BA because someone, somewhere, agreed to their EULA is scummy.
Any sane Judge would instantly throw out the EULA
 
The Disney guy has a case for sure. Its as big as me going after Disney.

The uber case....if they truly can't sue the company, wouldn't the best course of action be to sue the driver? They probably should have sued him first.
He's covered by Uber because he was on the job carrying passengers. Besides, there's not much money in suing a Gig driver anyways.

Uber insurance in the link you didn't click dijo:
  • Coverage when you’re en route or on a trip
    Uber maintains some of the most comprehensive insurance for ridesharing and deliveries, including:
    • Insurance that covers at least $1,000,000 for property damage and injuries to riders and third parties involved in an accident where you’re at fault
    • Insurance that covers the cost to repair your car, up to the actual cash value, with a $2,500 deductible, contingent on your personal insurance including comprehensive and collision coverage.³ This extra insurance maintained by Uber protects your car, no matter who’s at fault, if you maintain comprehensive and collision coverage on your own vehicle.
    In most US states, you can also purchase Optional Injury Protection to cover your additional medical expenses if you’re hurt in an accident. This insurance offering, pioneered by Uber, is designed specifically for drivers.
    Depending on the law of your state, Uber may maintain extra coverage for you and your riders, including one or more of the following²:
    • Coverage for you and your riders for injuries in a hit-and-run or an accident caused by an uninsured or underinsured driver
    • Personal injury protection, including medical expenses and lost wages for you and your riders, no matter who’s at fault
    • Medical payments coverage for you and your riders, no matter who’s at fault
 
Atrás
Top Abajo