Thread

Uber arbitration award over Emily Normandin-Parker’s death

159 points · 192 comments · dataflow

calibas · 1790002537 · focus · HN ↗
> Stone rejected Uber's argument that it is "merely a technology company" connecting riders with drivers, finding that Uber provides transportation services to the public through its app, sets prices and controls key aspects of the rider experience.
> The arbitrator also rejected Uber's argument that Proposition 22 -- a California ballot measure approved by voters in 2020 that allows companies to classify app-based drivers as independent contractors instead of employees -- prevented the company from being held liable for Tran's conduct.
The dream of every major tech company, making ridiculous profits while taking zero legal responsibility for what you create...
1. xhkkffbf · 1790004516 · focus · HN ↗
  The bad guy here is the driver. Could Uber have done more? That's what the arbitrators concluded.
  But the reality is that this is a victory for the driverless cars (Waymo, Tesla, etc.). If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.
  1. c22 · 1790005870 · focus · HN ↗
    This sounds about right. When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy:
    *"In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation." [0]
    0:<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg
    gruez · 1790008227 · focus · HN ↗
    >When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy:
    The driverless car that very much had a safety driver, which got distracted because she was watching TV shows on her phone?
    mrguyorama · 1790011305 · focus · HN ↗
    The driverless car which, as well as having an insufficient and negligent safety driver (a regime that the Air Transport and Train industries would be happy to provide the hundred years worth of evidence that allows us to know ahead of time that this is not going to work), also had safety devices disabled.
    The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well.
    You should in fact not be allowed to do something dangerous, but say you were not liable because the danger was someone else's responsibility. No! The danger was your responsibility, no matter who you hire to manage it!
    gruez · 1790023184 · focus · HN ↗
    >also had safety devices disabled.
    I don't see how that's a relevant point less those safety devices are mandatory. If my windshield broke, I was too lazy to fix it, and that resulted in auto-braking not working, then I was involved in an accident that could have been stopped with auto-braking, should I get extra flak because I didn't have auto-braking, even though it's not mandated?
    >The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well.
    The OP was talking about criminal responsibility. Obviously they should be responsible in civil court and pay damages, same as if UPS had one of its drivers crash into some kid. But should they be criminally responsible?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.