[faramarz]

The article doesn't mention if the driver was en-route to pick up a driver.

Uber should be liable once driver taps on the button and a customer is locked in. He's rushing to get there, like any other taxi who sees a customer flag them down across the road.

Makes sense no? That said, this is any company's nightmare. Why don't they just settle and be a good citizen.

[jcampbell1]

> Muzzafar was cooperative, Mahoney said, and “claimed he was driving around and his Uber application was turned on and he was waiting for a fare or job close by.” [1]

I don't think this case is going to have any dispute about the facts. He did not have a passenger, was not enroute to a passenger, but had the Uber App on and was driving around waiting for a fare.

[1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/uber-driver-arrested-...

[faramarz]

IMO, the only way Uber wouldn't be liable is if the cab driver shut off his uber phone and turned on his personal phone.

Uber app on means he's ALWAYS hunting for business. Uber enabled that. Uber's insurance should protect the driver.

[jcampbell1]

This is not really a debate about whether the family will get a settlement, it is more a debate between Uber and the driver's insurance company.

My guess the driver is going to be 90% liable, Uber 10%. California is a joint and several liability state, so Uber is going to pay all damages not covered by the driver's insurance. I am not a lawyer, but this seems so clear cut that it will never go to court.

[avalaunch]

I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. Since the driver isn't an employee, but instead an independent contractor, he could have the app on while he's driving to go get groceries or any number of other personal errands. Should Uber be liable then? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure.

[faramarz]

I understand your reasoning and I count myself on that side of thinking.

But then again, if you think about it, being an Uber driver is unlike any other contractor. If I were an Uber driver, i'd have my app open as much as possible. every second is potential income, and every ping to my app is guaranteed income.

Can a php contractor say that by having their email client open all day?

[faramarz]

I still can't find the line you just quoted.. maybe i'm tired. hmm

[jcampbell1]

My fault. I just ninja added the link.

[avalaunch]

What if he wasn't currently en-route to pick up a passenger but had the app open, available to be assigned a new ride?

My guess is that he had recently dropped off a passenger and was trying to get back to a location that he thought would make it more likely for him to be selected for another ride.

Do you think Uber should be liable then?

[faramarz]

I thought about it and I'm going to say yes. Uber is absolutely liable.

Simple;

  If Uber app is on = cab driver makes money
  If Uber app is off = cab driver makes no money.

Uber app operating is proof that cab driver is looking to get paid, looking for patrons, and hence employed by Uber.

Only way to circumvent that is to shut off the App if you're not going to be picking up anyone or you're in a buffer zone, grabbing lunch etc.

Am I wrong?

[avalaunch]

I'm fairly sure I agree. If Uber is liable when the driver is moving a passenger from a to b then I think they should also be liable whenever the driver has the app open and is available for rides. I'm just not 100% sure they should be ever be liable for a driver's negligent acts because those drivers are independent contractors, not employees. That to me is the more interesting question.

[trentmb]

> Uber app operating is proof that cab driver is looking to get paid, looking for patrons, and hence employed by Uber.

No, the Uber app operating is proof that the cab driver is amicable to getting paid.

[RealGeek]

Why isn't Uber liable?

Let's say I am a developer working at FooCorp and my employer provides an insurance for any accidents caused during work.

Now while I was having my lunch, there was a fire in kitchen that killed 2 employees. Now would it be fair for my employer to say that since the 2 employees weren't writing code when the accident happened, they are not liable for the accident?

[PakG1]

I'm trying to break this down. I haven't decided yet whether or not Uber should be liable, but your analogy isn't working for me.

Per your analogy, I'm guessing that for the sake of argument in your mind, Uber driver was working for Uber.

Your analogy goes:

1. A has employee B.

2. A has insurance for accidents affecting B during work.

3. A was physically associated with an accident that affected B.

4. B was not working at time of accident.

5. If, 1, 2, 3, and 4, then A is not liable for accident.

6. Therefore, A is not liable for accident.

I think the point of contention in the Uber case is whether #4 is true. If #4 is false, your conclusion doesn't work. Ways that #4 can be false have already been discussed thoroughly in these comments.

Again, I haven't decided for myself whether or not Uber should be liable. But this argument doesn't convince me that Uber shouldn't be liable.

[avalaunch]

I agree. I never said I didn't think Uber was liable. I was just posing the question.