[mjolk]

If this is the case, then my employer is also responsible for actions I take while I'm on-call (with the important distinction that my on-call is not opt-in and is per the terms of my employment contract).

If I break the law and hack someone's wifi for internet access in case I need to log in and fix something, that's on me. Likewise, Uber didn't make this guy drive without regard for others safety (or even suggest it for increased availability), so he alone should see the consequences of his actions. I sincerely hope that the Uber X driver has criminal charges brought against him.

[zkoch]

What was interesting to me, though, was this bit: "Applying the same law which holds taxi companies responsible for the injuries caused by their drivers, whether or not they have a passenger at the time of collision, Christopher Dolan, the Liu family attorney, states that the change in technology doesn't change the legal liability for Uber."

If that's the case, and the law states that the taxi company is liable irrespective of whether someone is in the car, why shouldn't Uber be held to the same standard?

[mjolk]

Uber doesn't have the same model as a taxi company -- what would stop a driver from staying logged into the Uber application whenever she's running errands? Taxi drivers drive shifts in which they're using cars that are the property of their employers.

[pm24601]

The key bit in the lawsuit is that Uber's business model depends on availability of drivers in a certain area. Those drivers are required to look at their cell phone while driving.

[JoeAltmaier]

There are also cities where the cabby owns the car. Then it would be more similar.

[pm24601]

Yes. You are correct, IF those actions are part of your duties while being on call. Just like Workers Comp insurance pays out if you injure yourself driving to a colo facility as part of being on-call.