Accident victim can't sue because daughter ordered from Uber Eats

Contents

Uber is going all Disney, but with success. A meal order placed with Uber Eats by a child in the USA activated an arbitration clause. Months later, when the mother and owner of the Uber account books Uber for a ride, a traffic accident occurs. Apparently, the Uber driver missed a red light. The woman and her husband, who was traveling with her, are seriously injured. However, due to the arbitration clause, the Uber customer is not allowed to go to court.

This is the result of an appeal decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey. Uber has thus enforced that an arbitrator selected by Uber will decide behind closed doors on any claims for damages by the accident victims. This includes not only any claims against Uber, but also against the driver and the other parties involved in the accident. Even the man who was a passenger is probably not allowed to go to court, even though he did not accept Uber's terms and conditions.

Hungry daughter clicks OK

And this is how it happens: US divorce lawyer Georgia McGinty has an Uber account. On April 1, 2021, she accepts Uber's new terms and conditions (T&Cs), waiving her right to a jury trial. In December of that year, Uber introduces new terms and conditions that include an almost complete waiver of court proceedings and more efficient collection procedures. There is no more talk of juries. Even the question of whether only the private arbitration tribunal has jurisdiction can now only be decided by the arbitration tribunal itself.

The following month, the McGinty family is packing for a vacation. The underage daughter receives her mother's cell phone with permission to order a food delivery. However, this is only possible if the new Uber terms and conditions are accepted. According to the family, the child clicks away the long legal text and untruthfully confirms that she is of legal age.

Serious accident

Months later, the mother uses Uber for a ride in New Jersey. Her husband goes with her. The accident occurs and both survive with serious injuries. The lawyer is unable to work for a whole year. In order to receive compensation for damages and pain and suffering, the couple filed a lawsuit against the driver who caused the accident, the other party involved in the accident, the owner of the vehicle and Uber and a subsidiary company. Six months later, Uber invokes the arbitration clause in its general terms and conditions. The court of first instance rejects this. In a comparable case, Disney recently also insisted on arbitration; however, due to harsh public criticism, Disney has since waived the arbitration clause – in this one case. Not so Uber. The company appeals and is successful.

In the Uber case, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court held that New Jersey law and settled case law there favor arbitration agreements over access to public court. It is clear from the transfer of the cell phone to the daughter that the child acted with her mother's knowledge. When the girl clicked away the text and the separate indication that she was of legal age, the arbitration clause had been bindingly agreed.

Arbitration court decides on arbitration court

The court left open whether this also applies if the child is not of legal age, but this is a condition for clicking away. This is a matter for the arbitration tribunal to decide because it is stated in the GTC.

And because the arbitration clause expressly claims to also bind third parties, be they claimants or defendants, husband John McGinty must also appear before the arbitration tribunal. "The arbitrator will therefore decide whether John is covered by the arbitration clause as a third party beneficiary," the panel of judges of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled(Georgia M. McGinty et al v Jia Wen Zheng et al, Case No. A-1368-23).

Editor's note: The court decision is theoretically available online at https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a1368-23.pdf; in fact, the court servers often prevent access from abroad. Republication in New Jersey, unlike in the case of decisions by US federal courts, is only permitted with express permission, which is why heise online cannot offer the download directly.

(ds)