hahattproUS couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
And they’ll keep getting away with it as long as corporations are treated better than actual people. And you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them. And every time we get complacent or blame someone else, it only gets worse.
ExtremeDullardyou know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them
That’s only half of the problem: even if you carefully read what you agree to, if you refuse agreements that include a forced arbitration clause, you have no other choice because all companies foist it on you.
In other words, if you refuse forced arbitration, you essentially have to opt out of normal life, because there are no alternatives.
In this specific case, society could have built a more fair transportation system, such as safe public transit, effectively providing an altnative to uber and a way to avoid agreeing to the terms.
Forced arbitration is unjust and should be outlawed. It’s only legal in 7 other countries: UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, China and India.
That’s right: 4 countries that are essentially US lapdogs, two dictatorships and one that’s on the fast track towards becoming one.
Also, you can totally see how America is so much better and totally different than China. The more I look at both, the less I can tell the difference.
But at least in the United States, there is hope.
TaiatariThe US has twice as many parties as China. If that ain’t a major difference then I don’t what is /s
Busting out a variation of the quote you think goes here:
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.
-Noam Chomsky
There’s the Left Butt Cheek Party and the Right Butt Check Party, both from the same ass hence why you get the same shit from both.
That was true through the Obama administration.
I don’t know what is going on now.
lapdogs
The Whitehouse is 12 years overdue for its 200-year reno. Are you angling to get it done for free?
SturgiesYrFase
Arrogant Worms~War Of 1812 bicentennial by moi
It’s not really legal in the UK. It’s unenforceable on claims under 5k and for claims over 5k the courts will make a case by case decision if arbitration is appropriate.
herbertsmithfreehills.com/…/click-to-agree-techno…
However, lots of companies still add these bullshit clauses as a way to bully people out of seeing a lawyer.
For sure and, even then, in uk law, you can’t sign away your right to take regular legal action against someone who caused you damage, due to their illegal actions. Something like the one in the article would be, rightly, dismissed as a repugnant clause.
Is it really called a “repugnant clause?”
Lol yeah, what these sorts of things would be dismissed as is literally called a “repugnant clause.”
It should be illegal for companies with a legal budget over X€ to have illegal clauses on their terms and conditions.
FYI it is the other way around. The British Empire spread Common Law around the world. Here is a Wikipedia’s Page (Common Law section) which explains the spread:
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_national_legal_systems
This is why we occasionally get courts referring to Ancient precedents from England.
SkunkWorkzUS lapdogs? If you look at the list all those countries were influenced or under control by the British Empire.
I mean, that’s true, but correlation v causation and all that. The list of countries “owned or influenced by” the British Empire includes a lot more than just these 7, and yet the forced arbitration club is a small one, so I’m not 100% sure I agree with your police work there, Hal.
Off topic, but since this is Lemmy, I choose to interpret your political assessment as,
- 4 US lapdogs: UK, Saudi Arabia, China and India
- 2 dictatorships: Canada and Australia
- fast becoming a dictatorship: Ireland.
The US has twice as many parties as china.
This is fucked. But I have a question. Why does Uber need to bother relying on the daughter’s agreement with Uber Eats? Surely the parents as Uber ride share users already agreed to similar terms no? Is this their way of testing this in court to see how far they can push it and set a precedent?
their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via **her mom’s ** Uber Eats account.
Yes but wouldn’t the parents already have agreed to such terms when they first signed up for Uber, long before their daughter clicked to accept the updated terms on Uber Eats (which presumably is a different app.)
Just fyi, über has one app. Covers both ride booking and food ordering.
Not on my phone
Perhaps a regional thing? Mine is one app.
My guess was either regional or OS; I’m in Canada, running Android
Not if those terms weren’t in the original ToS agreement.
I used to wonder what happened to kids who would always change the rules in the middle of a game like, “nuh uh nuh uh I have a shield around my whole body that blocks lasers,” so that they never ever lose. I thought they just grew out of it but now I realize they all became corporate lawyers for tech companies
Or became tech bros themselves and now want the world to cater to them.
Just learned this is Usha Vance, I think? Would explain some things… (JD Vance said his wife is a “corporate litigator” or something like that, in the recent US Vice Presidential debate)
So they were in an Uber, and ordered food on Uber eats, then the Uber driver crashed? Did I read that right?
Uber are pulling the same shit as Disney.
Apparently if you have ever ever ever accepted a Disney + account, and you have a family member die in a restaurant that is owned by Disney or dies in the theme park, you can’t sue Disney
And this is Uber doing the same thing. Uber driver crashed into a vehicle and because the woman in the car had ordered something on Uber eats she cannot sue an Uber driver ever.
Well, you absolutely can because the argument was immediately withdrawn as completely unenforceable, just like this certainly will be.
Unless the driver wasn’t insured properly, Taxis cover your bodily injuries in an accident. They should have no medical bills associated with it, and the article is kinda vague on that. If anything they should be taking this up with the insurance company. Unless the driver wasn’t insured properly, and Uber didn’t do their diligence then yeah it’s on Uber.
This seems like these people are trying to sue for more than that though?
Do i believe that Uber is being shady trying to pull some garbage about a separate TOS, yeah that’s shady. They should take it to the next level of appellate courts, which I believe would be the Supreme Court now.
Though this isn’t apples to apples of the Disney thing.
Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid. The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that that was legally binding for all Uber interactions
I’m surprised we don’t hear more about judges getting shanked for their shit reasoning.
Not quite, the parents created an Uber Ride and Uber Eats accounts several years ago, agreeing to the ToS at that time.
Several months ago, uber updated the tos and pushed it out to users as a pop up agreement.
The daughter was monitoring the phone to watch the driver and pizza on the map when the pop up blocked the app, the daughter, being a minority who wanted her to pizza just hit “accept” to go back to the app to watch get pizza.
Several months later, the parents hooked an uber ride, where the driver crashes and injured the parent’s.
Uber is claiming that because the daughter agreed to the ToS, the new ToS is valid.
The parents only ever had the opportunity to read the original ToS, which also has a similar arbitration clause, which is why the lawyer is saying the daughters pizza situation was mooting. But the two ToS are different because one is an updated version of the other.
For anyone needing this www.pandadoc.com/blog/how-to-terminate-contract
Disney may have abandoned this strategy with their wrongful death suit, but they pioneered it for other shitty companies. Great. This is reality now.
ZMonsterI realize that there is no way for me to argue this without sounding like some sort of neck beard corporate shill; but if you truly believe that the Disney+ debacle was at a basic level - Evil corporation uses despicable loophole to leave innocent widower stuck with the consequences of corporate negligence - then you really don’t know anything about that case at all, and singing in harmony with the endless voices parroting the same misinformation is not something you should be proud of.
Fuck Disney, all day, every day, forever. No doubt. But they tried to use a tactic that was EVERY BIT as disgusting as the one that roped them into the lawsuit to begin with. It is extraordinarily likely that Disney was going to be released from that suit but after the PR spin, they decided to throw the guy a bone just to save face. We don’t have to agree that Disney was somehow being magnanimous, but they chose to take one on the chin that apparently only they and Legal Eagle knew they would get out of.
I don’t have a problem with people spitting at Disney, but at least do it for a truthful and reliable reason.
For sure benefit of those that haven’t seen the LegalEagle video, why was Disney likely to be released from the suit?
The reason why literally any motion to dismiss would have likely been successful on the merits is because the only way, literally the one and only way the plaintiff was able to include disney in the lawsuit is because disney owns the land that was leased to the completely separate and not-affiliated-in-any-way-to-disney Irish Pub restaurant. The plaintiff argued that because there were pictures of disney owned lands for lease on their site and some of those pictures showed current lessees, ie some included the Irish Pub restaurant, he argued that they were also liable.
But if the connection to Disney was so remote and tenuous, why include them at all? Simple. Why sue a poorly managed restaurant that will likely collapse under the fairest fiduciary breeze leaving very little remuneration for you, when Disney’s pockets are vastly deeper? Now, again, fuck disney forever, so I could care less that someone tried to take a bite out of disney in an unscrupulous way. But if you’re going to do some shady shit to a corporation known for shady shit doings in an economy that encourages the most shady shit under a system that cultivates new ways of doing shit more shadily, then you have to expect them to fight less than fair.
I don’t want to speak ill of the dead, so I’ll assume that the deceased had no idea what was happening and instead speak ill of the living - in this case, her complete, utter, totally useless fucking husband. A moron of the highest degree who took his anaphalactically compromised partner with a known and fatal sensitivity to nuts… TO AN IRISH FUCKING PUB RESTAURANT!!! After the restaurant had demonstrated multiple times that things were not in order, they continued to dine. Assuming that these things (none of these as of a week ago at least have been denied by the plaintiff) are true, I honestly think the guy should be investigated for manslaughter.
So, you can understand why seeing people cry alligator tears over the poor innocent village idiot whose incompetence has now cost someone their life is pretty fucking sad to see. I mean, the constant and incessant misplaced vitriol toward Disney while they prepare to settle with a guy they owe nothing to is kind of making disney out to be the good guy - and that is the true travesty IMO.
Thanks for taking the time to write that up!
That all makes sense - though unless there’s info in missing, I’d argue the woman should have been responsible for managing her own allergies rather than her husband, but that’s beside the point, and I understand your position on speaking ill of the dead.
Whatever the case, it does certainly seem like the truth was steamrolled by a good story - though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Thanks again.
I don’t disagree, but I believe there was a communication barrier for her. I could be wrong and don’t remember right now, but I believe she did not know English.
though I do think the waiver arguments underpinning that side of the case will wind up getting pressure tested in pretty short order.
Possibly. Disney withdrew their motion after the PR hit them, and are likely negotiating a settlement. But other cases may change the way arbitration agreements and contract law are handled.
PriorityMotifDisney is obviously just obfuscating their liability by running the restaurant as a separate entity. The restaurant can’t operate without following Disney’s rules. By all intents and purposes the restaurant is controlled by Disney and Disney either knew or should have known that the restaurant was putting people at risk.
Your uninformed conjecture is not fact or truth.
Show me the lease agreement that says I’m wrong. I guarantee it’s much different than a standard commercial lease with more stringent requirements. If Disney is making specific requirements then they have a duty to enforce them.
I appreciate your concerns, but truly: I owe you nothing. It takes very little integrity to make an uninformed allegation and then sit back with a smug look and a mug full of selfrighteousness decrying “prove me wrong”.
Why don’t you prove Legal Eagle wrong? It would without a doubt be more fruitful because I’m not entertaining it.
Then why did they attempt to invoke the terms of an unrelated service rather than having the case dismissed outright? Makes no sense.
Obviously I can’t possibly speak as to why they chose to do what they did. But I would assume that making a motion to dismiss due to the fact that arbitration has already been agreed to (seemingly unrelated from your perspective but from a legal perspective is really the only substantive aspect, so wildly related) is far less scandalous than making a motion to dismiss with no recourse for the plaintiff at all and would be far more damaging to their reputation.
And that DOES make sense.
Right, but if they’re not affiliated with the restaurant, then the restaurant doesn’t fall under their tos, because they don’t own it.
The restaurant isn’t suing them, ding dong. The guy who consented to an arbitration agreement is. Jesus fuck, it is okay to be wrong. I know it sucks. It sucks even more to imagine that Disney might be doing something remotely respectable and have to admit that. But it’s okay. I’m wrong all the time. I face it, accept it, learn from it, and move on.
When you are ready to move on, go for it.
So they’re doing to arbitrate a case on behalf of the store? Makes no sense to think it applies to their arbitration agreement.
theneverfoxBecause Disney didn’t own the restaurant, it was a private restaurant renting a building in a shopping center owned by Disney
Disney was just the landlord in this situation, and so they honestly had nothing to do with it
I clicked through to see your reply explaining further, but this reply sucked. You didn’t explain shit in it.
Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.
But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.
If you go to your friend’s house for dinner and they end up giving you E Coli, do you sue their landlord? Because that is the situation you are glossing over by saying:
even interpreted in the best possible light
This is very reductive of the situation according to the plaintiff himself; which means you are either insincere or incapable. Either case leaves me entirely disinterested.
How is a private gift/shared activity subject to the same rules like a corporation selling you an item for profit?
I don’t have health inspectors in my kitchen. I better hope restaurants have them regularly enough to enforce hygiene standards.
Disney also does not have health inspectors in another company’s kitchen, because they don’t own that fucking kitchen. Bro, you are arguing with a keyboard warrior on Lemmy. Your total lack of understanding is clearly established by both the raft of legal professionals who have already demonstrated the reality as well as THE PLAINTIFFS FUCKING FILING. So by all means, reach out to the plaintiff and explain to him and his lawyer how much more you know about it. 🙄