Court Blocks Uber Crash Lawsuit After Couple's Daughter Agreed To Uber Eats TOS

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: A New Jersey appeals court says a couple cannot sue Uber over a life-altering car accident because of the app's terms and conditions, even though they say it was their daughter who agreed to those terms while placing an Uber Eats order. John and Georgia McGinty -- a Mercer County couple both in their 50s -- filed a lawsuit against the ride-hailing company in February 2023, nearly a year after suffering 'serious physical, psychological, and financial damages' when the Uber they were riding in crashed into another car, according to court filings. 'There are physical scars, mental scars, and I don't think that they will ever really be able to go back to their full capacity that they were at before,' says their attorney, Mike Shapiro.

Uber responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, which would require the parties to resolve their differences outside court instead -- ostensibly benefiting the company by lowering legal costs and keeping proceedings private. Uber argued that Georgia McGinty, a longtime customer of Uber Rides and Uber Eats, had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with the company when she signed off on the language in the app's terms of use on three occasions over the years. The McGintys fought back, saying it was actually their daughter -- who was and remains a minor -- who had most recently agreed to the terms when she used Georgia's phone to order food on their behalf. A lower court initially sided with the couple, denying Uber's motion to compel arbitration in November 2023. Uber appealed the decision, and late last month, the appeals court ruled in its favor.

'We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable,' the three-judge panel wrote in September. 'We, therefore, reverse the portion of the order denying arbitration of the claims against Uber.' Shapiro told NPR that the couple '100%' wants to keep pursuing their case and are mulling their options, including asking the trial court to reconsider it or potentially trying to bring it to the New Jersey Supreme Court. 'Uber has just been extremely underhanded in their willingness to open the same cabinets that they're forcing the McGintys to open up and have to peek around in,' Shapiro says. 'It's unfortunate that that's the way that they're carrying on their business, because this is truly something that subjects millions and millions of Americans and people all over the world to a waiver of their hard-fought rights.' 'While the plaintiffs continue to tell the press that it was their daughter who ordered Uber Eats and accepted the Terms of Use, it's worth noting that in court they could only 'surmise' that that was the case but could not recall whether 'their daughter ordered food independently or if Georgia assisted,'' Uber said in a statement.

The report cites another recent case where Disney 'tried to block a man's wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of his wife -- who died following an allergic reaction after eating at a Disney World restaurant -- because he had signed up for a trial of Disney+.' After negative media coverage, the company backtracked on its push for arbitration.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.