Liability and ride-sharing services

After a road collision, what happens when plaintiffs begin adding ride-matchmakers Uber or Lyft or RelayRides as a defendant, on grounds of inadequate screening or some other theory? [Emily Badger, Atlantic Cities]


  • Plaintiff attorney says, “And who’s going to say to that person that there’s no liability when this is a business making a huge profit?”

    What does profit have to do with liability? You are successful, so you are at fault? What?

  • Clearly they should also sue the city and the water company, for putting the hydrant in a vulnerable location, and the manufactrer of the hydrant for poor design (it sheared off and became a missle) and the company that provided the metal for the hydrant (not ductile enough for the intended application and any possible easily forseen mis-applications/accidents).

  • Don’t forget to include the state for giving the at fault driver a license.

  • Again, outrage at something that “could” happen. I don’t see any liability here. At all. Largely because of MattS’s point: a license means you are fit to drive absent pretty compelling circumstances.

    It is unbelievably hard to make these kinds of claims in the real world.

    Ah, forget it. Get back to your outrage and taking this theoretical example 11 steps further.

  • Not sure why this is being presented as a what if, theoretical scenario. As the article states . “She is also suing – and this is what makes this crash particularly interesting – the transportation-tech company Uber.” I don’t have any more info than the article, but it sounds like a claim is being made in the real world.

  • Peter, the finding of liability is a very different animal from a case getting to a jury Even further is a jury verdict.

    We have 300 million people in this country. People are going to bring goofy claims.