Individuals involved in a severe Uber accident are incapable of filing a lawsuit due to their engagement in an Uber Eats transaction.
John and Georgia McGinty were chilling in an Uber ride in March 2022 when their ride, disregarding a red light, collided with another vehicle, resulting in severe bodily harm, emotional distress, and financial losses, as stated in court documents.
Georgia endured multiple fractures across her body, including to her cervical, lumbar, spine, and ribs, along with various other injuries that required surgical procedures and treatments. John, on the other hand, dealt with impaired mobility in his left wrist and a fractured sternum.
The couple decided to take legal action against Uber, but a higher court recently denied their request for a jury trial, stating that they had previously agreed to Uber's updated terms and conditions, which include mandatory arbitration. This is applicable to both the Uber ride and Uber Eats apps.
The McGintys argue that their minor daughter was the one who consented to Uber Eats' terms of service by clicking the required button that confirmed her age, but the higher court deemed Uber's terms of service as valid and enforceable. These terms also include the provision that disputes related to car accidents or personal injuries will be resolved through arbitration, not in a court of law.
In response, Uber stated that Georgia McGinty had accepted the terms and conditions, including the arbitration agreement, on multiple occasions, including in early 2021, and continued to use Uber services after agreeing to those terms.
During court proceedings, the McGintys could only speculate on whether their daughter ordered food independent of her mother’s assistance, according to an Uber spokesperson.
The McGintys expressed their shock and disappointment with the court's decision, stating that it allows large corporations like Uber to evade lawsuits from injured consumers simply due to contractual language buried in lengthy user agreements that are not related to the service that caused the consumers' injuries.
Prior to this decision, a lower court had deemed Uber's arbitration clause as ineffective due to the pop-up presenting the terms of service failing to adequately and clearly inform the plaintiff of their right to waive the option of proceeding with their claim in a court of law. However, Uber appealed the decision, and the judges eventually sided with the company, deeming their terms of service as enforceable.
The McGinty’s legal counsel has stated they are reviewing the decision and are likely to petition the New Jersey Supreme Court.
Public Outcry over Arbitration
This case serves as another example of the complications caused by companies implementing binding arbitration agreements in their terms of services. In August, Disney reversed its stance in a dispute involving the terms of service in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the deceased woman's husband, granting the lawsuit permission to proceed in a court of law.
In the lawsuit, Jeffrey Piccolo, the deceased woman's husband, claimed that his wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction after consuming a meal at a park restaurant in 2023. Disney attempted to dismiss the lawsuit by requesting the court to move the dispute to arbitration, avoiding the process of a jury trial.
Disney argued that Piccolo had entered into a subscription agreement when signing up for a Disney+ trial years prior, requiring users to resolve disputes with the company through arbitration. However, Disney ultimately decided to change its position.
"At Disney, we value human dignity above all else. Given the unique circumstances in this case, we believe that a compassionate resolution can be reached for the family who has suffered such a profound loss," Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, stated in a previous statement.
The McGintys believe that Uber's arbitration clause allows the company to avoid lawsuits from injured consumers, as evident in their court case. Due to this dispute, Disney reconsidered its stance in a different lawsuit involving arbitration, deciding to permit the case to proceed in a court of law.
