- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- legalnews@lemmy.zip
A couple who were left with life-changing injuries after their Uber crashed have been told they cannot sue the company because of the terms they accepted when using the app.
Georgia and John McGinty, from New Jersey, in the US, are bound by a clause saying they could not take the case to a jury in a court of law.
State judges ruled they had clicked a "confirm" button on the app on more than one occasion when asked if they agreed with Uber's terms of use.
The McGintys argue they had not understood they were forfeiting their right to sue the company.
They told the BBC the most recent time the terms were agreed to was when their daughter, then 12, had accepted them prior to ordering a pizza on Uber Eats.
"How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?" said Mrs McGinty.
You must log in or register to comment.
I mean if this is allowed every company should do it for anything, congrats, no more legal system.
If the finding was that it's reasonable for customers of a ride sharing or taxi service to assume the risk of an accident occurring, then this would be like fine and reasonable. I really dislike that the judiciary is allowing you to wave your rights using terms of service
I mean these clauses are fucking stupid, but what's the context that would have given them a case to take it up with Uber and not the driver themselves? It seems like a hard sell even if the clause wasn't an issue.
I think the clause is exactly the issue. The fact that it sets further precedent that terms of service can be used to waive legal rights, rather than the much more reasonable ruling that ride sharing services can't be held liable for risk of a car accident occurring.
Typically employers are liable for the acts of their employees which were in the course and scope of the employment.
