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

Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#121

Post by uptown »

geoffschmidt wrote: post #73
uptown wrote: post #18

I think she's extremely naive to put her new car back into the pool before finding out how the courts handle this incident.

I think she's thinking logically. From the perspective of a RelatRides lessor, fatal accidents are low probability events. That she experienced such an event yesterday doesn't change the probability that she'll experience such an event tomorrow. She's only naive if every single RelayRides lessor who reads this story is also naive to continue using the service.

She's naive because she's choosing to re-enter a partnership based exclusively on the perceived benefits (make money, save the world, etc.) without having a clear interpretation of the associated risks. Worse yet, she doesn't even have a clear answer on what her current liabilities are from her previous vehicle. I'm amazed her insurance company offers her a policy given her apparent disregard for liability she's potentially assuming on their behalf. I agree with your last sentence.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#122

Post by ricardobeat »

dkrich wrote: post #110
ricardobeat wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driver liability is primary. The owner's insurance only comes into play in case the driver isn't insured or it doesn't cover full costs. That's the standard at least.

You insure a vehicle. If the vehicle is insured, then that insurer is the primary, so in the event of a claim, that is the insurance company on the hook. Now it is true that when you sign an insurance policy, part of the contract makes the insurance company liable for the driver if he is in an accident in another vehicle and for whatever reason there isn't a primary or the primary uses subrogation to recoup damages f…

That's true for covering the material damage, but in my understanding the liability for corporal damage/medical costs is not as black & white, and falls on the driver first.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#123

Post by chrischen »

uptown wrote: post #120
chrischen wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what if ms fong dies next next? Is the manufacturer now responsible since they are the next step up in the ladder of profiters of the car? You could assign the consequences of blame arbitrarily like that but it would have negative consequences on society. For example people would be less likely to do anything since association can now always lead to 100% blame. It's like a mobster who tries to get you to repay a r…

Presuming Ms. Fong was driving, and her death was caused by operator error, she would likely be to blame. If her death is caused by a mechanical issue - yes, the manufacturer could be held liable.

If the manufacturer is at fault, then the manufacturer is responsible. If Ms. Fong was at fault, then she would be responsible.

However the problem here is that the renter was at fault, but he/she is dead, so now they're trying to pin the responsibility on the closest related entity (even though with NO fault by Ms. Fong) that can also pay the costs.

If the person who died (or his/her family) has no claims to compensation from Ms. Fong, then why would the people he/she injured have any claims from her?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#124

Post by chrischen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #111
chrischen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure your analogy is sound? Ms fong had a 100% share in the car, but she already lost 100% value of the car to an entity at fault which is dead. Like a natural disaster, both entities can not reimburse for the fault, however the ride sharing company has willingly assumed the role of protector in the car case. But now the fault for the damage caused by the car while operated by someone else is more analogous t…

No analogy is going to be apt since this is legal grey area. Ms Fong should have recognised that risk going into the situation. Absent special laws protecting rental car companies from their drivers' actions they too would be liable for me taking my rental and ramming it into a McDonald's before fleeing the country.

Well I'm sure she knew the risks and realized it's safe because the ridesharing company would probably cover her.

I'm sure the special laws are there to be explicit since they already figured it made no sense to make the rental company at fault in situations like this. But this gives even more reason why Ms. Fong shouldn't legally be at fault since she's just like a rental company.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#125

Post by ivankirigin »

nknight wrote: post #13
ivankirigin wrote: post #2

This is a bit of FUD IMHO Also, I've thought for some time that P2P car sharing should be over longer terms, like months.

> This is a bit of FUD IMHO Would you care to tell us why? As-is, I could rewrite your comment as "Java is better than C IMHO" and it would be exactly as useful.

Take the single worst case possible and act as if this is normal = FUD

It is easy to spot this: if the article implies even in a slight degree that you'll die if you use a web service, it is FUD

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#126

Post by tibbon »

rayiner wrote: post #52
haberman wrote: post #16

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability. If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case. If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, bu…

It seems less perverse when you think of tort liability as assignment of the costs of risk, rather than punishment for negligent behavior. When someone drives a car, this creates risk. Who should bear this risk? Somebody has to, the only thing the tort system decides is who. If you don't assign the risk to the owner of the dangerous instrumentality, then you assign it to either the operator or the general public. Ass…

Why wouldn't it clearly be the operator in that case then? Its impossible for even the most responsible of people to foresee what will happen for someone driving their car.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#127

Post by tibbon »

Can someone explain to me why it isn't always the operator of the vehicle who is liable for death/destruction caused by their operation? Unless the brake lines were severed intentionally or the vehicle was provably neglected, then it would seem to me that the ultimate responsibility is on the driver who causes the accident- not the owner of the car or the company that facilitated the rental.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#128

Post by tibbon »

newbie12 wrote: post #27
libria wrote: post #22

> On one hand, she is certainly an inviting target. After all, she has worked full-time at Google and is now finishing her degree at M.I.T. She probably has many millions of dollars of income ahead of her that a lawyer could try to garnish. Absolutely disgusting. Our system punishes those brilliant and capable minds that can drive the nations economy. Meanwhile, underachievers everywhere can sleep peacefully. Unless…

She has clear liability. She agreed, after reviewing the request, to rent her car, for a profit, to someone who was a reckless driver and did serious harm to others (and, sadly, himself). I hate the U.S. tort system but some liability in this case is pretty reasonable.

What capability did she, or anyone have, to determine that this individual was a reckless driver? Given a lineup of 10 people, can you tell who is a reckless driver in 30 seconds or less without giving them a through skills test and psychological evaluation?

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#129

Post by deepGem »

Just an analogy - what if you rent your house and the renter happens to be a serial killer and 'uses' the house to murder people, and in one of the acts kills himself. Won't it be ludicrous for the authorities to prosecute the owner ? Unless they can establish that the owner had prior knowledge of the serial killer and rented the house on purpose.

I don't understand how the owner of the car can be held responsible for the damages.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#130

Post by tibbon »

ars wrote: post #108
vinayan3 wrote: post #107

Who was this person who rented the car? He was driving in the wrong lane. What kind of screening did RelayRides do?

Beyond checking that he has a valid drivers license (not suspended, etc), what else do you expect them to do?

Exactly. Before renting anything to anyone should they undergo a 2-day full psychological evaluation to ensure that they are mentally stable, plus a full driving skills assessment? No, that's clearly absurd.

It should be the driver and his estate that is responsible in the end. If that estate does not have enough resources to cover the damages, then... well, shit happens and sometimes there's just no recourse for bad luck.

Post reply on HN