[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.