Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash

These kinds of arbitration clauses make me almost irrationally angry because if very seriously challenged by any real firepower, don’t seem to have any real standing in a court of law, and if it does, the law clearly needs to be rewritten.<p>as a consumer now I have two choices - one being to completely abstain from normal consumption practices, and be labeled a paranoid weirdo for not wanting to participate in any of these corporation’s services lest I get into some horrible unlikely predicament later and have no recourse because I used a starbuck’s at a disney park’s subsidiary once. Or just succumb, knowingly or unknowingly.<p>Just completely beyond the pale to me. It’s almost satirical.

In France we have this concept, in most cases, that a contract cannot force somebody to accept a lower amount of rights than the general population. So for example if my employer makes me sign a working contract with illegal clauses (say, not enough pay leaves, or below minimum-wage salary), then they are at risk of a lawsuit even though I signed it (in fact they increase their own risk by emitting such contract in the first place).<p>I wonder how that would apply to general conditions that we &quot;accept&quot; just to get rid of the annoying popup. I mean obviously they won&#x27;t be able to enforce something like &quot;you accepted to give us 100k&#x2F;year by clicking &lt;&lt; consent &gt;&gt;&quot; but there should be some sort of framework of what is acceptable to contest as a user.

<i>&gt; They told the BBC the most recent time the terms were agreed to was when their daughter, then 12, had accepted them prior to ordering a pizza on Uber Eats.</i><p>Giving megacorps yet more advantages. Oops, you drank an Acme™ brand soft drink, that means you can&#x27;t sue us when our Acme™ brand self-driving cars crash through your kitchen. Oops, you once turned an Acme™ brand doorknob, that means you waive the right to sue us for malpractice in Acme™ brand hospitals.

That&#x27;s what insurance is for. I don&#x27;t know about US, but in my country, India, every ride is insured by law. See [1].<p>This is definitely not the first accident inside Uber cab in New Jersey, and they should look into past examples.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uber.com&#x2F;en-IN&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;uber-insures-riders-in-india-at-no-extra-cost-for-a-secure-travel&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.uber.com&#x2F;en-IN&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;uber-insures-riders-in-i...</a>

Do we have a link to the ruling?

Access to courts is one of the fundamental rights of a citizen in modern societies. Mandatory arbitration clauses take that right away. We need a new law to restore access to courts.

Pre-dispute arbitration agreements are vile. There is some legit support for reforming courts, or providing less formal access to courts, but the current US arbitration system meets all three definitions [0] of &#x27;Kangaroo Court&#x27;<p>(some background)<p>I&#x27;ve been spending more than a year learning everything I can about arbitration.<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;problems&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;problems&#x2F;</a> - a detailed, well sourced, listing arbitration problems. I also include positives there. While its biased, it isn&#x27;t actually biased against arbitration. It is biased <i>in favour of fairness and consumer rights</i>.<p>2. Every reference used on the website and many more: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;references&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;references&#x2F;</a> -- I have ready everything listed here <i>in full</i> including every footnote.<p>3. Every supreme court case (and some none USSC) case related. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;arbitration&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arbitrationinformation.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;arbitration&#x2F;</a> -- I have ready everything listed here <i>in full</i> including every footnote.<p>4. I&#x27;ve also read a lot not linked here. I don&#x27;t include it because I&#x27;ve not yet read in full. I have a backlog of over 265 items to read. I intend to get to them all.<p>6. I am not an attorney. However, I am deeply familiar with law, have taken the same classes that lawyers take for continuing education (CLE courses) on the topic, and have attended (and will continue to attend) academic conferences on the topic.<p>7. Real lawyers - including some who have argued cases in front of the supreme court - on cases listed above - have told me that my website is both thorough and accurate. I&#x27;d include their endorsements, but I have not yet asked them for permission. Also, the site changes over time and I&#x27;d want to figure out a way to make to indicate <i>which version</i> of the site they endorsed.<p>8. On a personal note: I really dislike falsehoods and unfairness. I am almost obsessive on learning everything I can on this topic. Seriously.<p>9. I suspect, with good reason, that I can be reasonably be considered an &#x27;expert&#x27; on the topic. The only people who know more than me on the topic are likely attorneys who specifically get paid to work on this area (consumer&#x2F;employment&#x2F;financial arbitration)<p>10A. I do have some blind spots: (a) I am not an attorney by training or trade. (b) I have been a client in arbitration but not a representative. Since arbitration is often confidential, and they aren&#x27;t courts of record, its hard to learn about what actually happens inside the process.<p>10B. However, I am working on fixing this as much as I can. I&#x27;m in touch with both attorneys, academics, and (soon) arbitration providers to see what I could learn. I&#x27;m still working on figuring some additional ways to learn more.<p>[0] Kangaroo Court—Black’s Law Dictionary—Ninth Edition. (2009). In Bryan A. Garner (Ed.), Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition, p. 409). WEST - Thomson Reuters. ↩

Why not sue the car manufacturer then? Public transport is much safer.

I honestly don&#x27;t understand, at all, what sort of liability would be in Uber&#x27;s camp.<p>Uber is a tech company that basically writes an app and maintains servers. They do their damndest to pretend that the drivers do not work for Uber. They use minimal vetting on those drivers, and they often look the other way when accounts are rented out illicitly, swapped-in vehicles go unreported, and other hijinks on the driver&#x27;s end. How could they possibly even be aware of issues which would affect a driver behind the wheel, or the vehicle on the road?<p>Since all that Uber does is write an app, then this family should be targeting the sole person who may bear any responsibility or liability: the driver themselves. It&#x27;s the driver&#x27;s personal vehicle: it&#x27;s not a fleet model, and Uber neither provides these, nor even inspects them! It&#x27;s all on the driver and the driver&#x27;s insurance, so let the drivers be sued.<p>Article says nothing about whether they&#x27;ve pursued this avenue, but just attempts to garner outrage over Uber&#x27;s perceived invulnerability here.