[yock]

The devil is in the details, so they say, but what you describe is not negligence. They didn't disable a safety feature and do nothing, they replaced a safety feature with something else. You'd need to make the case that this something else was somehow deficient in some material way and management shipped this feature knowing it was materially deficient for this to be negligence.

Why don't we instead start with the individual who was supposed to be monitoring the road and the vehicle's systems? It's well known at this point that they in fact were negligent in their duty.

[woodrowbarlow]

they disabled both the built-in emergency braking system and their replacement emergency braking system. they absolutely did disable a safety feature and did not have anything in its place.

[yock]

They still had a person in the car who was supposed to be operating, in effect, as an emergency braking system.

[rayiner]

As you acknowledge, the human was only the secondary driver. That meant that Uber put a primary driver in the car that was designed to not stop for pedestrians.