Do you think someone else should be able to waive your legal rights when your rights are not derivative of that other person’s right?
Uber waiver of trial rights
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
I just don’t understand how the state court ruled in Ubers favor. Fine print or legal mumbo jumbo aside that ruling is a net negative on society and its citizens. I feel lawyers and law get so caught up in fine print and minutiae that they forget to take a step back and understand why law was created for modern society. It was created to help protect citizens and make society a better more orderly place to live. Them ruling in Ubers favor is the exact opposite of that, totally missing the forest for the trees. The amount of power lawyers wield in this society is very disproportionate to their ultimate importance imo
Going to go out on a limb and say the headlines don’t explain the nuance of what actually happened.
Yeah, if my son grabs my phone and clicks a box on Uber Eats agreeing to T&Cs, that obviously shouldn’t be binding on me if I’m riding in an Uber.
This seems like the McDonald’s coffee case where it sounds absurd based on headlines until you look at the actual details.
Yeah, if my son grabs my phone and clicks a box on Uber Eats agreeing to T&Cs, that obviously shouldn’t be binding on me if I’m riding in an Uber.
This seems like the McDonald’s coffee case where it sounds absurd based on headlines until you look at the actual details.
Not sure why you are blaming lawyers on this one Ron.
Businesses love to put arbitration in their terms and services.
Hell, Disney had a PR nightmare a few months ago because they wanted to force a lawsuit into arbitration because someone had agreed to it when they signed up for Disney Plus. The woman died of a food allergy in a restaurant.
Now, I think that case is going to be one on HOW NOT to handle public relations. Disney only backed off because they knew they were likely not liable in this case but still stupid .
Businesses are putting it in their contracts, the lawyers just write what the business wants.
Do you know if you had an arbitration clause in your patient agreements?
Businesses love to put arbitration in their terms and services.
Hell, Disney had a PR nightmare a few months ago because they wanted to force a lawsuit into arbitration because someone had agreed to it when they signed up for Disney Plus. The woman died of a food allergy in a restaurant.
Now, I think that case is going to be one on HOW NOT to handle public relations. Disney only backed off because they knew they were likely not liable in this case but still stupid .
Businesses are putting it in their contracts, the lawyers just write what the business wants.
Do you know if you had an arbitration clause in your patient agreements?
You said you don’t know why I blame lawyers and then listed a bunch of ridiculous things created by lawyers. The only reason businesses put most things in their contracts is to avoid issues with other lawyers. Lawyers are the ones that tell businesses to put arbitration in their contracts, and most businesses just do what the lawyer tells them, and they typically tell them to do that because of fear of another lawyer going after them. Half the profession is self created.
I think it’s interesting that you think a guy that opens up a putt putt course to provide a fun activity for people in the community is also passionate about arbitration in case of injury.
In this thread alone there are two examples of lawyers run amok. In this first post a ridiculous example of a taxi company not being held liable to the injury of a passenger because of a teenager ordering a pizza and then in another post lawyers running a PR campaign for a major company in order to help pass tort reform - one of the worst offenses to the citizens of a country and their protection in history. I know this take wont be popular because there are 350 lawyers that post on the Paddock, but that is my viewpoint.You can hide behind the viewpoint of “oh well the lawyers are just doing the businesses bidding!” But the businesses wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything without the lawyers doing it, so own your actions. I’ve dealt with lawyers about 20 times and 18 have been ridiculous experiences. I’m not saying lawyers aren’t important of course they are but the profession has become over inflated and has lost track of its purpose in a lot of ways.
I think the poor part of the decision was applying the eula vs someone who didn't even approve it. If the proof was the daughter clicked it, it should be applicable vs only the person who clicked the box.
I do think one of the differing factors from the appalling disney position, is uber has a joint eula covering all uber services. By contrast disney tried to apply a waiver for one service vs another that arent under the same corporate umbrella.
I do think one of the differing factors from the appalling disney position, is uber has a joint eula covering all uber services. By contrast disney tried to apply a waiver for one service vs another that arent under the same corporate umbrella.
Uh, the ruling isn't that Uber isn't liable. It's that if something does happen you have to go to arbitration rather than letting a bunch of hill-jacks give the family $10 zillion for an accident. It actually increases efficiency of business which helps the consumer too.
Also, I don't believe for a second it was the daughter who accepted that thing.
Also, I don't believe for a second it was the daughter who accepted that thing.
Woman gets scalded by coffee and needs skin grafts = lol old lady burned herself
There was a story last year about a woman suing Disney because of an incident on a water slide. Every article I saw had a headline similar to ‘woman sues Disney over a wedgie’. Sounds silly until you actually read what happened and you get
‘McGuiness' injuries included "severe vaginal lacerations," damage to her internal organs and a "full thickness laceration" that caused her bowel to "protrude through her abdominal wall," her lawsuit says.’
My favorite movie moment of all time was when the T-Rex ate the lawyer in Jurassic Park.
Exactly. The law favors arbitration in general (see Federal Arbitration Act and most state analogs) so in most cases a judge must enforce the arbitration agreement. And there are specific scenarios where non-signatories be compelled to arbitrate. In general, the people who don't like arbitration are plaintiff's attorneys and consumer/employee advocates.
The McDonald's coffee case example of "the headline does not match the story" IMHO.
Doesn't matter what anyone believes if that is the proof in the record, which apparently it was.
Arbitration clauses inherently favor companies. Thats just a fact and why they always appear in contracts.
I am not completely opposed to an arbitration clause. I am opposed to the clauses that make arbitration binding AND force the arbitration to be before one of to be a small pool of company chosen options.
Those options are on that list for a reason. Make it completely random who hears it, and i would have no issue.
So the power of the clause and why companies use them has nothing to do with the mechanism itself but everything to do with them getting to control the decision maker. It would be exactly like a defendant getting to seat the jury of their choice.
You must be a plaintiffs lawyer. The rules of the organizations you are talking about (AAA/JAMS) have a rank/strike procedure to select the arbitrator(s). So it is not like the company picks it. Bottom line - plaintiffs attorneys do not like arbitration because it takes juries and class actions out of the question.
I am not.
Anyone on the list of these orgs in the contracts are there for a reason. They make major money doing this work.
If it doesn't matter, just let the plaintiff pick.