Hacker News Reader

Comment by pedalpete | Hacker News Reader

Suggesting that Uber is liable is probably going a bit far. He wasn't working for the company at the time of the accident, so why would the company be liable, in the same way that your employer is only liable for on the job injuries when you're... on the job. Even your commute to and from work is not covered (except possibly for some very strange circumstances).

At the same time, Uber could take a page out of AirBnB's playbook and just do everything they can for the driver and the injured family. The driver is part of their family of operators and the Liu family has just suffered a tragedy which involved an Uber contractor, on the job or not.

This is an accident, it was completely unintentional and very unfortunate. I'm actually saddened that the first reaction seems to be "who should be responsible".

View on HN

I think your analogy of an employee commuting to work is wrong.

Is a taxi cab driver only working for the taxi company while they are driving passengers? I think most people probably would not think that's the case. Driving the car is what Uber drivers are supposed to do, so it's not wrong to assume that an Uber driver is working for Uber while driving around, waiting for their next fare. The fact that their insurance doesn't cover an Uber driver while in between fares sounds weird to me, but I guess it's a function of the Uber driver's employment agreement with Uber, which is probably too complex for regular people to be familiar with (I would never have guessed it).

I think the more interesting legal question is whether or not Uber has liability due to how potentially distracting the app is for an Uber driver. Polk and Ellis is a fairly well-trafficked intersection, so if I had to speculate, maybe the driver was distracted by the Uber app, looking for the next ride. If that's the case, and Uber knowingly made an app that is distracting to drivers, does Uber have any liability? If I were the family that was hit, that's certainly a question I would ask.

"...while driving around, waiting for their next fare."

Why drive around whilst waiting? It seems like a waste to do that unless you're a licensed taxi (and are therefore permitted to pick up people who spot you as you're driving around).

I would have to guess it has to do with the lack of parking, which is likely the same reason why the rideshare services are appealing in the first place.

Maybe, but it seems easier to just pull up somewhere and wait. Even if meter parking is expensive, you won't get a ticket for waiting in a meter spot if you are in the car (and can therefore move on at any time).

What if the cause for the accident was that the driver was responding to a 'ride available' text from Uber? It's not a bad argument to say that Uber requires that drivers pay attention to their cell phone when not in an active ride, hence they should be liable when the driver is able to respond to pick up requests (ie, is looking to do a pickup)

I'm with you as I don't understand why Uber is even being brought into this. No one would be talking about the liability of Apple if Tim Cook hit someone with his car. Uber did the right thing in suspending the driver but and it sounds cold but that's really the extent of their responsibility.

If Apple was paying Tim Cook to drive around as his only responsibility for Apple, then they would be talking about liability.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com