[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.