Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#11

Post by avalaunch »

faramarz wrote: post #3

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver. Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road. Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

What if he wasn't currently en-route to pick up a passenger but had the app open, available to be assigned a new ride?

My guess is that he had recently dropped off a passenger and was trying to get back to a location that he thought would make it more likely for him to be selected for another ride.

Do you think Uber should be liable then?

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#12

Post by alecsmart1 »

jonobird1 wrote: post #9

I don't see how Uber is responsible. Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't sue Android if you were texting while driving, or Google Maps if you were changing your location and had a crash. So why would Uber be responsible if their driver was using their app? Especially if Uber says to their drivers not to use it while driving. Interested to hear thoughts here.

I agree with you. I don't understand why you have been downvoted. Am not from US so maybe there is a different thought process.

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#14

Post by velis_vel »

jonobird1 wrote: post #9

I don't see how Uber is responsible. Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't sue Android if you were texting while driving, or Google Maps if you were changing your location and had a crash. So why would Uber be responsible if their driver was using their app? Especially if Uber says to their drivers not to use it while driving. Interested to hear thoughts here.

Under your Google scenario, presumably the person using Google Maps on Android wasn't operating as a driver working for Google. Uber hired him to drive cars, so they're liable for what he does while he drives them.

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#15

Post by RealGeek »

avalaunch wrote: post #11
faramarz wrote: post #3

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver. Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road. Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

What if he wasn't currently en-route to pick up a passenger but had the app open, available to be assigned a new ride? My guess is that he had recently dropped off a passenger and was trying to get back to a location that he thought would make it more likely for him to be selected for another ride. Do you think Uber should be liable then?

Why isn't Uber liable?

Let's say I am a developer working at FooCorp and my employer provides an insurance for any accidents caused during work.

Now while I was having my lunch, there was a fire in kitchen that killed 2 employees. Now would it be fair for my employer to say that since the 2 employees weren't writing code when the accident happened, they are not liable for the accident?

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#16

Post by skj »

RealGeek wrote: post #7
[deleted] wrote: post #4

[deleted]

> 3) The news reports - "at green light". Does that mean, even the driver was not at fault? The driver was turning right, that means the pedestrians light was also 'Go'. Moreover, the driver must yield pedestrians according to right of way traffic laws. So, the driver was at fault not the pedestrians. Most likely the driver was in a hurry to pick up an Uber passenger, that means he was on Uber's duty. Uber's argument…

"Most likely the..."

I don't care much one way or the other about Uber or about this case, but statements like this are a bit scary. Why would you assume? It makes it seem like you're starting at a conclusion ("Uber is at fault") and working your way back to some evidence ("Therefore the driver must have been in a hurry to pick up a passenger").

Sure, the "evidence" arrived at fits the conclusion, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#17

Post by jcampbell1 »

faramarz wrote: post #3

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver. Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road. Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

> Muzzafar was cooperative, Mahoney said, and “claimed he was driving around and his Uber application was turned on and he was waiting for a fare or job close by.” [1]

I don't think this case is going to have any dispute about the facts. He did not have a passenger, was not enroute to a passenger, but had the Uber App on and was driving around waiting for a fare.

[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/uber-driver-arrested-...

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#18

Post by faramarz »

avalaunch wrote: post #11
faramarz wrote: post #3

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver. Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road. Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

What if he wasn't currently en-route to pick up a passenger but had the app open, available to be assigned a new ride? My guess is that he had recently dropped off a passenger and was trying to get back to a location that he thought would make it more likely for him to be selected for another ride. Do you think Uber should be liable then?

I thought about it and I'm going to say yes. Uber is absolutely liable.

Simple;

  If Uber app is on = cab driver makes money
  If Uber app is off = cab driver makes no money.
Uber app operating is proof that cab driver is looking to get paid, looking for patrons, and hence employed by Uber.

Only way to circumvent that is to shut off the App if you're not going to be picking up anyone or you're in a buffer zone, grabbing lunch etc.

Am I wrong?

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#19

Post by faramarz »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #17
faramarz wrote: post #3

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver. Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road. Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

> Muzzafar was cooperative, Mahoney said, and “claimed he was driving around and his Uber application was turned on and he was waiting for a fare or job close by.” [1] I don't think this case is going to have any dispute about the facts. He did not have a passenger, was not enroute to a passenger, but had the Uber App on and was driving around waiting for a fare. [1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/uber-driver…

I still can't find the line you just quoted.. maybe i'm tired. hmm

Re: Uber sued by family of six-year-old killed in San Francisco crash

#20

Post by joshuaheard »

jonobird1 wrote: post #9

I don't see how Uber is responsible. Correct me if I'm wrong but you wouldn't sue Android if you were texting while driving, or Google Maps if you were changing your location and had a crash. So why would Uber be responsible if their driver was using their app? Especially if Uber says to their drivers not to use it while driving. Interested to hear thoughts here.

You would have to read the complaint for the actual language as the article contains an ambiguous summary. I agree with your reasoning, that it sounds like I could sue Facebook if a driver was looking at Facebook while driving. However, if he was looking at the Uber app as part of his duties with Uber, Uber may be liable. If true that Uber instructs its drivers not to use the app while driving, Uber may have a defense.
Post reply on HN