Comments on: Liability and ride-sharing services

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 01:23:25 +0000

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.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:00:48 +0000

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.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:48:31 +0000

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.

By: MattS

MattS — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 18:54:32 +0000

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

By: rxc

rxc — Thu, 12 Sep 2013 11:02:37 +0000

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).

By: Jason Barney

Jason Barney — Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:30:57 +0000

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?