New Jersey Couple Injured in Uber Accident Cannot Sue After Daughter Agrees to Arbitration Terms

Image by: BBC
0

A New Jersey couple who were injured in a car accident while riding with Uber are unable to sue the ride-hailing firm because their underage daughter previously used Uber Eats, according to the family’s attorneys.

According to a recent court ruling, Georgia and John McGinty “were rear seat passengers in a vehicle” driven by an Uber driver who “ran a red light and t-boned” another vehicle on March 31, 2022.

According to the court ruling, the wife suffered cervical and lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, a bulging hernia, abdominal wall, pelvic floor, and other bodily injuries as a result of the accident, necessitating many surgeries. The husband had a cracked sternum and serious fractures to his left arm and wrist, necessitating a bone graft. He now has limited use of his left wrist.

In February 2023, the McGintys filed a lawsuit against several defendants. Months later, Uber moved to compel arbitration. Last Monday, a Garden State appeals court decided in favor of the company.

“We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter agreed to while using her cell phone, is valid and enforceable,” the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled in a per curiam judgment on September 20.

The crux of the argument is Uber’s terms of service, which were amended in December 2021, and who specifically signified their comprehension of and consent to those revised terms.

“Uber’s app was designed so that a user — such as Georgia — could not continue using the account to access Uber’s services unless and until the updated Terms of Use were agreed to,” according to the court.

The family maintained that the wife, who purchased the app in 2015, did not agree to the operative conditions on January 8, 2022. Rather, the McGintys claimed, their underage daughter logged in using her mother’s phone, checked the appropriate box, and hit the “Confirm” button.

Finally, the court ruled that Georgia McGinty “agreed” to the arbitration rules in question, “either by herself or through her daughter using her Uber account.”

“Georgia certified that her daughter was ‘capable,’ would frequently order food, and she and John were preoccupied with packing, which supports the inference that the daughter acted knowingly on Georgia’s behalf,” the court writes. “In conclusion, the Arbitration Agreement is legitimate and delegated the threshold question of the scope of the arbitration to the arbitrator. As a result, the arbitrator will examine Georgia’s reliance on her daughter’s minority to establish an infancy defense.

The McGintys are now expressing concerns about such arbitration agreements.

“We are horrified at what the court’s decision suggests: A large corporation like Uber can avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries,” the patient’s family told Law&Crime. ”

Here, the content, format, and presentation — dozens of pages on an iPhone screen during a food delivery order — make it impossible that anyone could understand what rights they were potentially waiving or how drastic the consequences could be.”

In a response to Law&Crime, Uber emphasized that “the court concluded that on multiple occasions the plaintiff herself — not her teenage daughter — agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use, including the arbitration agreement.”

The McGintys’ counsel signaled that their legal battle was far from over, telling Law&Crime that they were studying the ruling and would most likely file an appeal with the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

“First, this is yet another arbitration clause that looks to have an infinite reach — this agreement has allegedly consented to months before the tragic motor vehicle collision when the McGintys, really their minor daughter, was placing a food delivery order,” the legal team at Stark and Stark said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Second, it is yet another example of the erosion of consumer protections and rights.”

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.