Uber terms mean couple can’t sue after ‘life-changing’ crash

A couple from New Jersey, Georgia and John McGinty, faced a life-altering experience when an Uber ride ended in a crash that left them with significant injuries. However, they were recently informed that they cannot pursue legal action against the company due to terms they accepted while using the Uber app.

New Jersey state judges ruled that the McGintys had acknowledged Uber’s Terms of Use multiple times, which included a clause that mandates arbitration for disputes rather than allowing them to go to court. This decision hinges on the couple’s acceptance of the terms, a process they argue they did not fully comprehend, especially given that their daughter, then just 12 years old, had accepted the terms while ordering food through Uber Eats.

Mrs. McGinty expressed her disbelief, saying, “How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?” This sentiment highlights the confusion many users may have regarding the implications of such agreements when engaging with apps.

Uber defended its position, stating, “Our Terms of Use are clear that these types of claims should be resolved in arbitration.” They emphasized that it was Georgia, not her daughter, who agreed to the terms, suggesting that the couple had knowingly waived their right to a jury trial on multiple occasions.

The couple’s injuries were severe. Mrs. McGinty suffered from spine fractures and traumatic abdominal injuries, resulting in a week-long stay in critical care. She also faced a post-operative infection that nearly cost her life, leaving her unable to care for her daughter, who was dealing with her own health issues at the time. John McGinty, on the other hand, endured a shattered wrist and hand injuries requiring extensive surgery, resulting in chronic pain and long-term medical expenses.

Despite their efforts to sue Uber, citing the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of the right to a jury trial, the court upheld the company’s terms, declaring the arbitration clause valid and enforceable. The judges noted that the minor child had inadvertently agreed to the terms while misrepresenting her age.

Mrs. McGinty found this ruling particularly troubling. “I don’t know how anybody makes that leap,” she stated, questioning how her daughter’s use of the app could waive their rights as parents.

Arbitration, which is a common practice in corporate contracts, typically means disputes are settled by a third-party arbitrator instead of a jury trial. Legal experts indicate that arbitration often leads to lower financial settlements for plaintiffs. Critics of these clauses argue they can diminish consumer rights and limit avenues for redress against large corporations.

In a related case, Disney faced backlash for attempting to use a similar arbitration clause to avoid litigation after a death at Disney World. The company later retracted its arbitration claim and agreed to a jury trial following public outcry. This situation underscores the growing scrutiny on arbitration practices, particularly in high-stakes incidents involving serious injury or loss.

Legal professionals emphasize the importance of understanding what users agree to when accepting terms and conditions, as these documents often contain critical clauses that can impact a user’s rights. Ted Spaulding, a personal injury lawyer, noted that while the law expects individuals to know what they are signing, the scope of such agreements should remain relevant to the transaction at hand.

For the McGintys, the aftermath of the crash has been devastating. They have incurred substantial medical debt and continue to face uncertain futures concerning their health and finances. Their daughter, now 14, has experienced significant emotional trauma, complicating her own health challenges.

“We are inadvertently teaching her about adversity and resilience,” John McGinty remarked, despite the hardships they face. The family remains hopeful but deeply affected by the incident and its consequences.

In light of their experiences, the McGintys’ case serves as a cautionary tale about the potential ramifications of digital agreements and the ongoing debate surrounding consumer rights in the age of technology.