Uber Cabs must pay- literally! Criminal and Civil remedies

Shiv Kumar Yadav, the man who was driving the Uber Cab was arrested yesterday in his home town Mathura. It is said that he is a repeat offender. In 2011 he was in jail for allegations of rape. The police is checking to see if he was acquitted in the case as he claims.Uber Cabs has said they will fully cooperate with the investigation. They also issued a statement:"We became aware of the incident this morning. Safety is Uber's highest priority and we take situations like this very seriously. We are working with the police as they investigate, and will assist them in any way we can to determine what happened," the statement read.However a large part of the liability is of Uber Cabs. Uber Cabs must pay- literally. Aside from the criminal liability, the company should face civil claims. There are clear shortcomings on their hiring policies. The news says there was lack of GPS in the car and no registration of the driver. The reports show that the US-based company neither ran a background check nor got police verification done for the driver as required.Uber admits in its statement as to the reason why people use their services:"We work with licensed driver-partners to provide a safe transportation option, with layers of safeguards such as driver and vehicle information, and ETA-sharing to ensure there is accountability and traceability of all trips that occur on the Uber platforms," the statement further read.People avail of Uber services because of their reputation as being safe and expensive hence implying that extra care would be taken. Standards that Uber seems to maintain in countries abroad cannot be done away with merely because they are allegedly using a third party in India. There is definitely another case of deficiency of services here.Law abroad:Uber registered in California would face charges there under:California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; andThat [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.Directions for UseGive this instruction if the plaintiff alleges that the employer of an employee who caused harm was negligent in the hiring, supervision, or retention of the employee after actual or constructive notice of the employee’s unfitness. For instructions holding the employer vicariously liable (without fault) for the acts of the employee, see the Vicarious Responsibility series, CACI No. 3700 et seq.It appears that liability may also be imposed on the hirer of an independent contractor for the negligent selection of the contractor. (SeeNoble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 662—663 [109 Cal.Rptr. 269].)Sources and Authority“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 122].)“Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’ ” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139 [91 Cal.Rptr.3d 864].) “Liability for negligent hiring and supervision is based upon the reasoning that if an enterprise hires individuals with characteristics which might pose a danger to customers or other employees, the enterprise should bear the loss caused by the wrongdoing of its incompetent or unfit employees. The tort has developed in California in factual settings where the plaintiff’s injury occurred in the workplace, or the contact between the plaintiff and the employee was generated by the employment relationship.” (Mendoza v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1339—1340 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 525].) “A claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining an employee-driver rarely differs in substance from a claim that an employer was negligent in entrusting a vehicle to the employee. Awareness, constructive or actual, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive underlies a claim that an employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that person as a driver. (See Judicial Council of...

Uber Cabs must pay- literally! Criminal and Civil remedies

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags