
Uber and a Child’s Death - pierrealexandre
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/uber-and-a-childs-death/
======
bradleyjg
I can understand the argument that Uber has some liability here, either
through their own negligence or vicariously. But the author of this article
says:

"Mr. Muzaffar, who cooperated with the police after the accident, had been
driving for Uber about a month, his lawyer said. It was a full-time job, using
his own car, to support four kids. In the new sharing economy, he takes the
fall."

Come on! Regardless of whether Uber also has liability, this guy hit three
people and killed one of them, he's not some innocent fall guy. In any event,
he either had or should have had vehicle insurance, so in what sense is he
taking a fall?

~~~
mikeyouse
If he only had standard vehicle insurance, it wouldn't cover him if he were
driving professionally.

He'll take the fall because Uber's going to do everything in their power to
ensure the claim doesn't hit their insurance. Fortunately, the CPUC passed a
law last summer to ensure that the ride-sharing companies have to actually
carry a significant level of insurance for their drivers.

Fortunate in the sense that this girl's family might see some sort of
consideration for their daughter's death and the other injuries.

~~~
pachydermic
Right. The insurance problem is _the_ reason why I am hesitant to use these
kinds of services (airbnb, peer-to-peer car rental, car-pooling apps). When
something goes wrong, what happens? It just freaks me out - not that companies
conforming to existing norms and regulations won't try to screw you over
either.

~~~
_delirium
I'm also wary for those reasons, but I believe AirBnB at least is making some
efforts to do something about it (granted, after some bad PR [1] spurred
action). They initially offered a $50k-per-host indemnity [2], and have since
upped it to a $1m-per-host indemnity [3]. Assuming they'll reliably stand
behind it (rather than get out of it via fine print, e.g. in cases of illegal
sublets, which are common on their marketplace), that seems like a responsible
approach to managing some of the risks their business opens up.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813956)

[2] [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/08/airbnb-
in...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/08/airbnb-insurance-
guarantee.html)

[3] [https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee](https://www.airbnb.com/guarantee)

------
angersock
So, the argument (as the article relays it) is that a driver is only working
for/with Uber when a fare is in their vehicle--therefore, the death of the
child having happened when no fare was yet in the vehicle is not the fault of
an Uber contractor/employee and by extension Uber.

This seems like a rather delicate interpretation of how people perceive group
belonging and responsibility.

It also seems incredibly scummy.

~~~
hueving
Where do you draw the line though. How long does the driver have to have
waited since the last fare before he/she is no longer 'on-shift'?

~~~
femto
The lawsuit suggests the test should be whether the driver is logged into
Uber's application. This would seem like quite a good test, in that it is
measurable to an exact time, and presumably indicates that the driver is
available for fares, meaning they are "on-shift".

------
rayiner
> Uber asserts that Uber drivers without fares are not Uber cars.

This is just Uber trying to reap the benefits of providing a taxi service,
without bearing any of the costs of the risk created by their service. It's a
textbook case of externalizing costs while keeping profit privatized. In this
case, the costs will be externalized onto injured people because drivers
almost certainly don't have the resources to pay the resulting damages.

Of course, cab companies do this too. If a cab kills your kid, good luck
getting more than the $50k or so minimum liability insurance required by state
law. However, cabs are regulated parts of the transportation framework. In
theory, in return for externalizing these costs to the public, they have to
provide certain benefits, such as not discriminating between rich and poor
neighborhoods, etc.

~~~
baddox
Do you think the externalized costs of car-sharing services are greater than
the externalized costs of government-regulated taxi services?

~~~
rayiner
Depends on the location. In New York City, cabs are required to carry $100k
per person/$300k per event liability insurance, versus the $25k/$50k state
minimum, which is all you can expect Uber drivers to have. So more cost is
passed back to the cab company in the form of insurance premiums, and less is
externalized onto the public.

Moreover, in return for indulging the fiction that cab drivers are independent
contractors, the public extracts certain concessions in return for taking on
the externalized costs of accidents. Cab companies have to accept regulated
rates (that are lower than what Uber charges), and have to agree to serve the
whole city.

~~~
harryh
It's worth noting that it was the SF cab system's complete failure to
adequately serve the whole city that gave birth to Uber in the first place.

~~~
rayiner
I think cab systems have a lot of problems, for example the under supply of
medallions in New York. I would favor abandoning the scheme altogether, and
just requiring Uber-like businesses to carry a lot of liability insurance and
meet certain requirements for driver identification. But while the existing
system exists, and cabs have restrictions Uber doesn't, I don't think its fair
for Uber to basically run a cab company while ignoring cab regulations.

------
ameister14
Whether he was using said app at the time or not, the lack of hands-free
capability on the app is serious. The case does make some good points about
that.

Further, I don't think the "he wasn't actively driving someone in the car so
he wasn't an Uber driver at that time" is gonna fly. I think it would be more
accurate to go by his use of the app; if he was using it and driving around
looking for a fare, he's an active driver. If he's not using it, he's not.

It's really sad that this little girl died, and anything Uber's app may have
done to in any way contribute to her death should be fixed. I don't know if
they're liable and I don't think them paying out a big sum will work, but they
should have some impetus to improve their app from this. I'm sure they will be
thinking about that anyway.

~~~
fleitz
Actually if he was using the app Uber's lawyers are going to have a fun time
because then he's being willfully negligent.

They will claim he should have pulled over and used the app in accordance with
state law, and that uber is not at fault because the driver was being
criminally negligent.

------
sliverstorm
This reads to me as yet another example of how Uber wants to be a taxi service
without having to submit to any of the laws a taxi service must.

~~~
oleganza
Does it matter if the driver was in a Uber, Taxi or a personal car? It was a
regular human in a regular car.

~~~
sliverstorm
To my understanding, if a taxi driver was to strike a pedestrian, the taxi
company would be liable, because the driver was operating for the taxi
company.

Even though a taxi driver is pretty much a regular human, and a crown vic in
taxi-yellow is pretty much a regular car.

~~~
bedhead
Unless it crosses into criminal, then you are correct.

~~~
sliverstorm
Right, criminal is a separate beast.

------
gasull
How would regulation have prevented this at all? A cab would be as likely to
hit the child.

~~~
bonemachine
The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a
look:

    
    
      When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
      interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
      under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
      telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
      configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
      essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
      “development, implementation and use of the app” so as
      to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.

~~~
angersock
As we've seen with the Google buses, when an individual does it they must
follow the laws, and when a company does it it isn't a crime.

~~~
bonemachine
Well it's still a "crime", technically, but for companies at Google/HSBC/BP-
scale the consequences are more like those for a misdemeanor -- i.e. you might
pay a trivial fine, and maybe get a little egg on your face, but that's pretty
much it. Whereas for an individual or a small-timer, the analogous violation
would be treated as felony-class, or worse.

 _So dreht sich alles auf der Welt._

------
msandford
I can't help but think that a cab driver who ran over someone would be
personally liable. Perhaps the cab company would be too, but the driver is
licensed to drive completely aside from his employment. He failed to drive
properly.

[http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/special-licenses.php](http://www.dmv.org/ca-
california/special-licenses.php)

A truck driver who ran someone over similarly might be personally responsible
and the company he was working for at the time might also be responsible.
Truck drivers either work for an hourly wage (if the company they work for
owns the truck) or they get paid by the mile (if they own the truck). What
would happen if an owner-operator ran someone over on his way to pick up a
job? I imagine that it would be completely on him and the company that
arranged the job for him would bear no responsibility.

UberX drivers get paid a portion of the fares they collect, so they're not
paid by the hour. I think it would be fairly clear they're not "employees" in
the traditional sense but rather contractors.
[http://readwrite.com/2013/08/19/financing-your-next-
startupa...](http://readwrite.com/2013/08/19/financing-your-next-startupas-an-
uber-driver#awesm=~oubvAUD9SPmnQY)

I'm not saying that I think Uber is doing the morally responsible thing by
distancing themselves from this situation but neither is it an open-and-shut
case that they're 100% liable for sure.

------
Jun8
This is Uber's first major "ransackgate" (see
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2825177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2825177),
[http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-
air...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-airbnb-as-
users-home-is-utterly-trashed/)): rather than playing dumb or being ultra-
cautious and making teh same mistakes that Airbnb did they should
_immediately_ move to make the situation right. Sadly this incident involves
deaths rather than just theft.

Another thought: This incident points to precisely the same type of litigation
that self-driving cars will have to face, in fact in those cases the service
provider/manufacturer will be hit even more since there will be no driver to
"take the fall".

~~~
DrStalker
I think that is going to be the biggest challenge of driver-less cars; we've
seen the massive fuss when people start claiming their accelerators got stuck,
what happens when someone claims their car crash was because of a bug in
Google Car?

~~~
erikpukinskis
Well, in some sense it is moot. Driverless cars are a substantial shift in
efficiency, so there is a strong economic pressure to adopt them. The fears
you describe will only get traction in some markets. That will slow adoption,
but it won't halt it.

Over time, the statistics about how there are far fewer deaths in driverless
markets will shift the dialog.

Think about Ireland, where drunk driving deaths are understood by the public
to be a legitimate public health crisis. If Ireland allows driverless cars and
the UK doesn't, then the forcing function will be in place and the UK will
eventually bend.

------
harryh
How much would it cost Uber to just carry insurance for things like this?
Would it materially impact their business? Anyone wanna take a stab at this?

------
rosser
Gosh, this was flagged off the front page quickly...

