| This is the insane part of the situation, and what everybody should be outraged about. You can make a great argument that the rider wasn't following the rules, perhaps was impared, and that taxpayers shouldn't be on the hook for damages (in any case, they aren't, since part of the agreement between Bird and the city is that Bird has to cover damages). HOWEVER, it is extremely unfair for the terms and conditions of an app to say, "If you use this, you can't sue us, and if you sue us anyway, you have to pay for the cost of our defense against your lawsuit." That essentially circumvents the entire civil legal system in the United States. It's a shame that this has come to light in a case of such questionable liability. But don't let that cloud your perspective on this part of the case. Let's imagine a case where Bird was clearly at fault, and the rider was following all the rules. Should a company be able to indemnify itself against any liability as a condition of using its products? Certainly not, at least if you believe in the core principles of the American civil legal system. |