On April 19, 2022, Mark Geller took an Uber to Chicago Midway Airport. The driver lost control on southbound I-55 at Throop Street around 8 p.m. and both the driver and rider died.
Geller’s wife sued Uber. Whether or not Uber was negligent here isn’t the interesting question. It’s whether or not the deceased man’s family even gets to sue.
- Uber argues that the lawsuit shouldn’t go forward in court, and that Geller’s wife should be forced into binding arbitration because she is an Uber user and she agreed to arbitration under her account.
- And, they say, a court doesn’t even get to review whether arbitration is appropriate because the arbitration agreement delegates that to the arbitrator.
- A trial court sent some claims to arbitration under the rider’s agreement with Uber, but not Wrongful Death Act claims that belong to the wife – because those claims do not arise from the wife’s own use of Uber. But the First District disagreed and said her agreement required an arbitrator, not a court, to decide whether she has to arbitrate.
Chicago Midway Airport
On May 19, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral argument on this issue.
Uber’s terms had a delegation clause that said an arbitrator gets to decide whether the arbitration agreement applies. They argue that the surviving spouse had an Uber account, she accepted Uber’s terms, and it required arbitrating all claims against Uber.
But the spouse says her personal Uber account had nothing to do with the fatal ride. She’s not suing as a Uber user. And Uber is using generic app terms as an end-run around wrongful death laws.
She argued that Uber did not prove she personally reviewed or meaningfully accepted the terms, that users did not even have to scroll through the terms, and the app didn’t require any initializing of them or flagging the arbitration portion in the dense text. There was no real ability to negotiate or defer while continuing to use the app. The First District rejected those arguments and found the adhesion contract fully enforceable.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports Uber in this case because they want courts enforcing online arbitration agreements.
It makes sense for companies to want to limit costly litigation. But it seems like if we’re enforcing adhesion contracts, there needs to be some bounds for them. Uber arguing that because you’ve ever used your app you cannot sue them in court for things unrelated to your own use, which you probably didn’t even know, seems like a step too far. It shields them from liability far beyond their actual transactions between company and customer.
Agree with you. Unless she was using her app to book hers husband’s travel, it should have zero applicability.
She likely will lose from a legal perspective. Whether she read or scrolled through the agreement isn’t the point – she accepted it, just like airline passengers accept a contract of carriage, simply by doing business with Uber. If it is broad enough to state any disagreement with Uber goes to arbitration that is the end game. Also, if her husband had an uber agreeement (which he likely did since he ordered one and died in it) he (or his estate) also is bound by the arbitration ruling. Finally the fact he died or there wasn’t an accident doesn’t mean Uber has any liability. First of all the accident may not be the driver’s fault and secondly, even if it was, Uber would have had to have been aware of his driving record which could reasonably lead to an accident.
I hope she and the ambulance chaser lose totally. The civil litigation system in the US is a joke and needs to be reformed. Money doesn’t cure things and people shouldn’t get a lottery ticket when someone dies.
I hope she wins. The law should apply equally so if it was a child that didn’t have an Uber account was suing, the case would end up in the same place. It is interesting to note that Uber is willing to take the decision of the courts if they win by it. It should be noted that Uber carries liability insurance so that there would still be a payout in this case. It should also be noted that clause about arbitration cannot completely bypass the courts since the courts have to agree to let the case go to arbitration.
It seems to me that Uber is saying that even though it was an Uber Driver and a Uber passenger died, and she wasn’t physically using her own account it doesn’t matter. I think it’s a cop out so Uber doesn’t have to take responsibility and payout a fortune for wrongful death.
Guess what Uber, anyone can sue anyone for any reason. You have no say in who can sue you. Furthermore the PR hit you are willing to take for the loss of the poor soul on one of your rides should stop you in your tracks as you search for technicalities. This woman lost her husband and you do not see any connection to Uber here? Good luck living this down in the minds of your future customers!
If his estate that sues for the death, it should go forward. Her relationship with Uber has nothing to do the administration of the estate.
Nothing anyone signs or agrees to can negate Gross Negligence! This applies to what Uber knew…or should have known as far as the risk to passengers of this driver. It’s not cut and dry folks. I’d pursue this and have a jury trial and I bet Uber will lose. Lives were lost. This was not a random unknown driver, it an UBER driver. There is responsibility and I bet a jury will connect those dots. Only the legalese of lawyers think otherwise but then that’s why we hate lawyers!
Maybe spouses should have ride share accounts with different providers. It seems unreasonable to me that an arbitration agreement should prevent anyone with standing to bring a cause of action against Uber just because they are also a member of the Uber ecosystem. Does Uber’s arbitration agreement explicitly bind a spouse for “derivative” claims? I’m going to read mine again.
This reminds me of another case where Disney tried to use a Disney + arbitration agreement to get out of a lawsuit relating to a death at one of its restaurants. Disney backed down following public pressure.
https://lawreview.missouri.edu/infinite-arbitration-how-one-click-can-take-you-out-of-court-forever/
Two years ago, Disney sought to avoid a jury trial for wrongful death of a spouse in a similar way. It settled without either adjudication or arbitration. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/does-signing-up-for-disney-mean-you-can-never-sue-the-walt-disney-company/
Regardless of the legal basis of the arbitration clause, I hope she wins big simply because they’re being such a**holes about this.
This is like when Disney tried to block wrongful death lawsuit at park because family had Disney+ account. Ridiculous. https://www.npr.org/2024/08/14/nx-s1-5074830/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-disney
This is like the Disney restaurant allergy death and the Disney+ TV subscription
The terms of the contract should dictate any lawsuit. No whether those terms screw the consumer is different matter. We as consumers sign lousy contracts all the time.
“If his estate that sues for the death, it should go forward. Her relationship with Uber has nothing to do the administration of the estate.” But his estate is bound by his agreement to Uber’s terms. They have far less a case than does she.
These agreements should be illegal…companies keep trying to hide things in a eula that basically prevents them from having any liability whatsoever and that is trash. These corporations need to start being heavily taxed and heavily regulated and all executive stock options and bonuses taxed as salary.
The wife having a separate Uber account should have no bearing on anything. The plaintiff in this case is the estate of the husband. As for me, Uber WAS my primary rideshare source but based on how it is handling this claim, Lyft will now move into that spot.
“The plaintiff in this case is the estate of the husband.” Once again, the dead husband’s estate can bring suit, but is bound by agreements made by the deceased. And, you can sue when your spouse dies, as she is. The question is whether her agreement with Uber affects that. (IANAL)
By extension of this logic, if an uber hits me while I cross the street and I die, my spouse’s claim can go different way depending on whether she has an uber account. That sounds insane.
Note this is Illinois, the big blue state, where who has the green is what really matters.
Uber just shot itself in its foot.
I was okay with those clauses for my own account. Because if your driver had killed me, I’d be dead anyway. Judges and the law can be wayyy too literal. When one of the things we’re taught in law classes is that you need to gauge the intent of the law, even if you have to read the arguments that took place during its passage. Or you could, ahem, deploy common sense.
George Thorobad agreed. Any bonuses “earned” on the back of those arrangements should be forfeit when they cost the company money. As they will when a sane judge and responsible jury hear those cases.
What if I get run over by an Uber as a pedestrian. Will Uber point to the fact that I have the app on my phone and agreed to their arbitration?
If we truly had government of, by and for the PEOPLE, instead of an oligarchy of, by and for corporate America, forced arbitration would be illegal. Time for a second American Revolution. First, we eat the rich.