[JumpCrisscross]

Liability is a function of risk which isn't necessarily a function of fault. In capitalism the returns and risks are, by default, routed to the owner.

Shares in a company whose factory gets wiped out by a hurricane you will experience a loss. This isn't the shareholders' fault, but it is a risk assumed by owning the asset. The shareholders could later sue management for being negligent and management could sue the construction company or risk advisor who said hurricane insurance is bull, etc. But the risk first comes to roost with the owners. A similar outcome would be expected if a tree on the factory premises toppled over and killed a pedestrian.

The principle difference between my example and the RelayRides case is the limited liability afforded by a common stockholder versus unlimited liability of a sole proprietorship (which is what you operate as if you directly interact with RelayRides as a natural person).

P.S. Those of you piping up about how this could never happen in Europe, note that this is because European countries tend to have higher insurance caps. In this case I would expect, in my completely un-qualified opinion, RelayRides to be ultimately responsible for implying that a $1 million liability cap was sufficient.

[chrischen]

Are you sure your analogy is sound? Ms fong had a 100% share in the car, but she already lost 100% value of the car to an entity at fault which is dead. Like a natural disaster, both entities can not reimburse for the fault, however the ride sharing company has willingly assumed the role of protector in the car case. But now the fault for the damage caused by the car while operated by someone else is more analogous to people getting killed by rubble in the factory during the hurricane. The hurricane can't be sued, and the fault doesn't technically lie with the factory owners, so society doesn't have a right to assign the consequences of fault arbitrarily to the owner now does it?

[JumpCrisscross]

No analogy is going to be apt since this is legal grey area. Ms Fong should have recognised that risk going into the situation.

Absent special laws protecting rental car companies from their drivers' actions they too would be liable for me taking my rental and ramming it into a McDonald's before fleeing the country.

[chrischen]

Well I'm sure she knew the risks and realized it's safe because the ridesharing company would probably cover her.

I'm sure the special laws are there to be explicit since they already figured it made no sense to make the rental company at fault in situations like this. But this gives even more reason why Ms. Fong shouldn't legally be at fault since she's just like a rental company.