850
US couple blocked from suing Uber after crash say daughter agreed to Uber Eats terms
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
850 points (99.4% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9748 readers
263 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they were in an Uber, and ordered food on Uber eats, then the Uber driver crashed? Did I read that right?
Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid.
The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that they could NOT sue because those terms of service were legally binding for all Uber interactions
Not quite, the parents created an Uber Ride and Uber Eats accounts several years ago, agreeing to the ToS at that time.
Several months ago, uber updated the tos and pushed it out to users as a pop up agreement.
The daughter was monitoring the phone to watch the driver and pizza on the map when the pop up blocked the app, the daughter, being a minority who wanted her to pizza just hit "accept" to go back to the app to watch get pizza.
Several months later, the parents hooked an uber ride, where the driver crashes and injured the parent's.
Uber is claiming that because the daughter agreed to the ToS, the new ToS is valid.
The parents only ever had the opportunity to read the original ToS, which also has a similar arbitration clause, which is why the lawyer is saying the daughters pizza situation was mooting. But the two ToS are different because one is an updated version of the other.
I'm surprised we don't hear more about judges getting shanked for their shit reasoning.
Uber are pulling the same shit as Disney.
Apparently if you have ever ever ever accepted a Disney + account, and you have a family member die in a restaurant that is owned by Disney or dies in the theme park, you can’t sue Disney
And this is Uber doing the same thing. Uber driver crashed into a vehicle and because the woman in the car they crashed into had ordered something on Uber eats once upon a time when she was on her moms account she cannot sue an Uber driver ever.
Unless the driver wasn't insured properly, Taxis cover your bodily injuries in an accident. They should have no medical bills associated with it, and the article is kinda vague on that. If anything they should be taking this up with the insurance company. Unless the driver wasn't insured properly, and Uber didn't do their diligence then yeah it's on Uber.
This seems like these people are trying to sue for more than that though?
Do i believe that Uber is being shady trying to pull some garbage about a separate TOS, yeah that's shady. They should take it to the next level of appellate courts, which I believe would be the Supreme Court now.
Though this isn't apples to apples of the Disney thing.
Well, you absolutely can because the argument was immediately withdrawn as completely unenforceable, just like this certainly will be.