Uber orderit tae pey $40m ower the daith o wuman ejectit by driver on freeway

Uber wis orderit tae pey $40m tae the parents o a 23-year-auld wuman that wis kilt efter a driver pit her an a freend oot o his cair bi the side o a California freeway, accordin tae new public airbitration documents.

An airbitrator, retired California judge Richard A Stone, fand that the ride-share company wis vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.

In August 2023, twa wuman, Emily Normandin-Parker an Luna Moore, hailed an Uber efter a nicht oot in Orange coonty. The driver pu’ed ower on the 73 freeway efter Normandin-Parker vomited in the cair, attorneys said. While Moore an the driver argied ower a cleanin fee, Normandin-Parker gat oot o the cair, wandert intae oncomin traffic an wis struck by a cair.

Normandin-Parker’s parents accusit the driver an Uber o negligence. The company argied it wis juist a technology company that provides a software platform connectin riders wi independent third-pairty drivers wha perform the transportation. In California, unner Prop 22, Uber an Lyft drivers wur categorised as independent contractors – no employees o the companies – a designatioun the company has uised tae argie it is no liable for the actions o its drivers. Houever, the airbitrator rejectit Uber’s argiment that it shud be treated as a platform that merely connects drivers an riders.

In airbitration documents releasit by the family’s attorney on Thursday, Stone wraite that Uber shud be treated as a common carrier – whilk is ony entity or individual that transports fowk or guids – an thus shud be held vicariously liable for the incident. Vicarious liability is whan ane pairty is held liable for the negligence or actions o anither pairty that it has a relationship wi.

The fact that Uber uises a digital interface rather than street hails does no chynge the fundamental nature o the service bein offered, the airbitration documents read. Stone further assertit Prop 22 does no immunise Uber frae vicarious liability for the torts o its drivers.

Uber said that while the company respects the airbitration process, the airbitrator wis wrang in haudin Uber legally responsible for the tragic events o that nicht.

Nae family shud hae tae suffer the loss o a bairn, an oor thochts continue tae be wi the Normandin-Parker family, said Uber spokesperson Gabriela Condarco-Quesada. We hae continued tae strenthin oor approach tae safety ower the years, throu new technology, policies an safegairds informit by safety experts, includin additional guidance tae drivers aboot avoidin drop-offs in unsafe locations.

The family further assertit that Uber at ane pynt proposit a settlement that includit a confidentiality agreement. As pairt o that agreement, the family said they wad hae been chairgit a $10m penalty ony time they spak aboot the accident an Uber’s connection tae it. The family said they rejectit the settlement an Uber said it ultimately did no pursue confidentiality in this case.

The rulin tae haud Uber liable for the negligence or actions o its drivers is no bindin an applies only tae this case. Houever, the case is pairt o the company’s battle tae be treated as merely an online marketplace for rides an in daein sae distance theirsels frae the actions o their drivers by treatin them as contractors rather than employees.