Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

The contract goes both ways. Passengers have a responsibility to be safe passengers, and not damage the driver's vehicle. Passengers are not free to damage personal property or behave in a way that puts the driver at risk.

Drinking is a voluntary choice. Riding in a rideshare is a privilege, not a right.

Hello, it’s not a regular arms-length contract. There is longstanding legal precedent requiring common carriers (which Uber is under most state law) to have a duty of care towards passengers. The Uber driver cannot kick a passenger out into an unsafe situation.

And they didn’t in this situation. What’s your point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

The contract goes both ways. Passengers have a responsibility to be safe passengers, and not damage the driver's vehicle. Passengers are not free to damage personal property or behave in a way that puts the driver at risk.

Drinking is a voluntary choice. Riding in a rideshare is a privilege, not a right.

Hello, it’s not a regular arms-length contract. There is longstanding legal precedent requiring common carriers (which Uber is under most state law) to have a duty of care towards passengers. The Uber driver cannot kick a passenger out into an unsafe situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe people are blindly accepting this bizarre story.

It doesn’t sound like the reporters are even accepting it, they all make a point of mentioning how the Uber ride ended hours earlier than her tragic death and that it didn’t end on 495.

Most people aren't buying the story but what do you want people to do? Yes it's bizarre and someone is lying but it is what it is. Nothing I can do to change the outcome.

Pretty sure no one is asking you to change the outcome. People want to know what actually happened to this woman. Especially since a large go fund me is out there, giving the money to , presumably, her husband who hasn’t mentioned why he wasn’t with her despite apparently leaving the Uber at the same time as her, on a different street, 3 hours earlier

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe people are blindly accepting this bizarre story.

It doesn’t sound like the reporters are even accepting it, they all make a point of mentioning how the Uber ride ended hours earlier than her tragic death and that it didn’t end on 495.

Most people aren't buying the story but what do you want people to do? Yes it's bizarre and someone is lying but it is what it is. Nothing I can do to change the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe people are blindly accepting this bizarre story.

It doesn’t sound like the reporters are even accepting it, they all make a point of mentioning how the Uber ride ended hours earlier than her tragic death and that it didn’t end on 495.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A woman just got sent to prison for leaving her 2 year old alone for 10 days. There are all kids of parents out there. Anything could have happened here but none of it makes sense without knowing what happened in those two mysterious hours.

The woman was sent to prison for life because she purposefully killed her 2 year old.

There's no indication that this family left their baby alone when they went out.

And clearly my point was “there are all kinds of parents out there.” Several posters seem to assume they were totally normal parents out for night and were victims of a mean Uber driver. I’m saying “maybe not.”

I cannot believe people are blindly accepting this bizarre story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

The contract goes both ways. Passengers have a responsibility to be safe passengers, and not damage the driver's vehicle. Passengers are not free to damage personal property or behave in a way that puts the driver at risk.

Drinking is a voluntary choice. Riding in a rideshare is a privilege, not a right.

This right here. You are paying for a service and the company reserves the right to deny service as they please. Don't like it? Take the bus.

Anonymous wrote:A woman just got sent to prison for leaving her 2 year old alone for 10 days. There are all kids of parents out there. Anything could have happened here but none of it makes sense without knowing what happened in those two mysterious hours.

The woman was sent to prison for life because she purposefully killed her 2 year old.

There's no indication that this family left their baby alone when they went out.

A woman just got sent to prison for leaving her 2 year old alone for 10 days. There are all kids of parents out there. Anything could have happened here but none of it makes sense without knowing what happened in those two mysterious hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

I agree. Unless the driver has a safety concern, that’s what they signed up for.

Uhh you know they aren't paid an hourly wage and are just sitting around in their personal property waiting for people to say they need them. You are delusional. People do not have the right to destroy other people's property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

Please cite the rule that they are unable to kick out drunk people acting badly.

Well we don’t know what “acting badly” means. There’s no duty to put up with a threat of violence. But a common carrier absolutely cannot kick out a vulnerable rider and put them into a dangerous situation.

Good thing it was a trio of people vs an Uber driver. Who do you think was in a more dangerous situation? Drivers have a right to cancel rides too.

You guys there is no evidence the driver dropped her off on the highway, in fact the police specifically say he did not. And there is also no evidence the woman was drunk to be honest (although I don’t know why else she’d be wandering on 495 two hours later).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

The contract goes both ways. Passengers have a responsibility to be safe passengers, and not damage the driver's vehicle. Passengers are not free to damage personal property or behave in a way that puts the driver at risk.

Drinking is a voluntary choice. Riding in a rideshare is a privilege, not a right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uber should make it prohibited to kick people out of the car regardless of vomit and drunkenness unless there is a recorded incident of violence or threat. They chose to pick up drunk people if their car gets damaged they can charge the guest.

GTFO, drunk people chose to get drunk and book a ride, they can suffer the consequences. Unless Uber forces people to disclose "I am drunk" then the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the driver.

Nope. Uber is a common carrier and has a duty of care towards passengers. They are not free to leave passengers in unsafe situations.

Please cite the rule that they are unable to kick out drunk people acting badly.

Well we don’t know what “acting badly” means. There’s no duty to put up with a threat of violence. But a common carrier absolutely cannot kick out a vulnerable rider and put them into a dangerous situation.