Link: https://jacobin.com/2026/06/congress-uber-lyft-immunity-crashes

Why would any work towards making their tech better when you can just free yourself from the consequences of its mistakes.

under a union seizure, the drivers can get the cars themselves to control, the office workers could maintain technological tools to keep the same level of coordination between driver and rider

Eh, this actually makes sense. It is a lot like the graves amendment for rental car companies.

For better or worse, ride share is a pretty important part of society now and making them responsible for every crash involving their drivers is eh.

They are liable for gross negligence

i guess also there is no incentive for a vetting process by uber of drivers after this, making connections with no vetting just as attractive to riders, whilst being a positive force for the labourers

not that vetting without centralisation isnt possible

Or, maybe we hold corporations accountable for their outsized impact on society?

The company has billions of dollars available. They can be liable for crashes involving their drivers. You're using a "too big to fail" adjacent argument that makes no sense

I do not necessarily disagree, I think they should be taxed to all hell and resources used to improve infrastructure. I am just saying if an uber driver runs a red light, may not be anything Uber can do about it

Taxi companies found a way. Just because a tech monopoly wants to say they're different doesn't actually mean they are. They can use that money to properly screen and train drivers and only once a best effort has been made (which again taxi companies have shown can be done) do they get lessened liability.

But agreed 100% on the tax them into the ground and build public infrastructure instead idea. Loads of people love trolleys and trains, never see anyone get excited about an Uber or a Lyft

Right but taxi companies did it the same way mcdonad’s did. Franchises…

So, if any company contracts our their work, are they no longer liable? Or is ot just rideshare? In that case, why would any company keep liability by having employees?

Sure, uber are at risk from having de facto employees cause damage. They could prioritise safe driving and do proper training. Instead they just churn through drivers who eventually realise its not worth it.

Franchising changes how expansion is financed. It doesn't magically change liability or operational requirements and is not relevant

I am just saying if an uber driver runs a red light, may not be anything Uber can do about it

I am just saying if a factory employee ignores some safety checks, may not be anything the factory owner can do about it

I am just saying if a surgeon leaves a glove in a patient, may not be anything the hospital can do about it

Companies create the incentive structures, checks, and balances that drive their employees to take certain actions. Factories that don't leave enough time for workers to do their due diligence cause workers to ignore safety checks. Hospitals that pay surgeons to work overtime cause surgeons to make mistakes from inattention. Rideshare companies that pay drivers depending on how quickly they get people from point A to point B cause drivers to disobey traffic laws.

At the very least, legal responsibility for crashes and traffic law breaking is an incentive for rideshare companies to change their drivers' incentive structure in order to promote save driving. It doesn't have to be a moral assignment of guilt, just a way for society to have fewer road deaths because of market forces.

Yes it does, mcdonald’s is not liable for a slip and fall at a franchise location.

In Texas, legally, yes, if they contract out work, not liable for independent contractors. In Re Home Depot, sw.3d (Tex. 2026)

Do you want all your cars and offices burned to the ground? Do you want your CEO to be luigi'd?

Because that is how that happens. It's a bad decision to for the entirety of humanity (well, in the dictatorship called USA, that is) but it is also extremely dangerous and stupid for these companies and their CEOs. If they think they can pull this shit and not get into really deep shit themselves, then they're mistaken

Your car hits a child and then you just claim "fuck you I have immunity, there is nothing you can do!" right in gun nut country? Dude, that is a bad move.

Ride-sharing was setup just so they could legally squeeze the drivers to hell and back, and specifically to indeed shield themselves from legal liabilities. This problem exists only by design.

If this doesnt work for the companies them maybe the entire ride-sharing is a bad idea to begin with because not always was a bad idea to begin with

Ban ride sharing

Uber could provide training and if there are drivers being reckless of their own accord face a risk of getting banned (fired of you will) from being a driver.

Maybe but the franchise location still suffers the risk of getting shut down because the corporation doesn't want to deal with the lawsuits. Or did you think that safety requirements where not in the Franchise agreements?

That's factually incorrect. Look up Vicarious Liability suits which are are exactly that. A lawsuit where an injured party believes the franchisor is at least partially responsible due to various things which can include negligence in safety standards imposed on the franchisee. As with all law it gets complicated fast but there are definitely ways to hold McDonald's accountable for things at a franchise location. They aren't magically free.

What state? I am a lawyer in Texas

You're either a liar or a lawyer I'd never fucking hire that's for sure.

Here's literally my first search result I find a lawyer talking about it in Texas

And here's another five seconds to find it mentioned in a supreme court case

And five more seconds where it's mentioned in Texas in a previous case

You clearly did not read your nonsense

Great counter argument. Really proves me wrong. 10/10

Because you're clearly not the most intelligent. I'm mocking you because apparently you can't even ctrl+f the case you fucking mentioned. "Vicarious Liability" is argued and mentioned right fucking in the case you mentioned previously (In Re Home Depot, sw.3d although I'll grant the opinion is against it there the point it is a thing and is argued stands).

Fuck off

Lol, texas having counterintuitive laws that hurt people and help corporations. Whoda thunk?

I dont think ride sharing shoikd be banned. It provides some benefits for riders, and for drivers. However, it also carries risks and has shifted costs and liabilities. That should be corrected, legally. Similar for airbnb and the whole gig economy.