news

23550 readers

57 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Uber terms mean couple can't sue after 'life-changing' crash (www.bbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago

I mean if this is allowed every company should do it for anything, congrats, no more legal system.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Typically employers are liable for the acts of their employees which were in the course and scope of the employment.