Cyclist says Uber system flawed after cab hits her from behind

brooksby wrote:

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you.

Which means the Met will umm for a while, and then nothing will happen...

That is the bottom line, but whether or not they are an employer is to be determined, and Uber's carefully worded contract wouldn't protect them from such an evaluation. The law can be fairly straight forward on employment matters, and it tends to consider the fundamental relationship first.

The less scrupulous employers try tricks all the time by only taking on agency staff to avoid basic obligations, and the law clamps down on it all the time. The same is true with respect to liability and who is ultimately responsible for the safety of a companies workers and the public.

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you./quote]

You're absolutely right that the law determines whether they are an employer, not their contract with customers. But Uber drivers determine their own times, places and hours of work, they provide their own vehicles and they decide on a job by job basis whether to accept work. On that basis, there is no way they'll be found to be the employer of an Uber driver.

Still, you'd hope they have provided the full details of the driver to the police, and that the police can then pass them on to the cyclist who can make a claim. Whether a prosecution results is a very different matter.

step-hent wrote:

You're absolutely right that the law determines whether they are an employer, not their contract with customers. But Uber drivers determine their own times, places and hours of work, they provide their own vehicles and they decide on a job by job basis whether to accept work. On that basis, there is no way they'll be found to be the employer of an Uber driver.

That may work for the taxman, but not in terms liability on a matter of public safety. The drivers are not independent minicabs, that itself would be illegal. As the driver, they can only conduct business whilst operating for Uber, as Uber holds the license to be a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator.

brooksby wrote:

Bottom line is that if Uber are "managers" or employers then their insurance pays. If the drivers are indeed independents who happen to arrange fares using Uber's system, then its no different than if any normal average Joe runs in the back of you.

I've never really looked into Uber, but is anyone allowed to just jump in their car and sign up? If so aren't we bypassing the licensing laws surrounding taxi drivers and also not to mention car insurance for business use?

I wonder how many Uber drivers have notified their insurance they are using their cars for business use, because if not they are effectively driving uninsured. If this is the case and the driver wasn't a licensed taxi cab, then wouldn't the police be interested to know whether or not they have the correct insurance.

gavben wrote:

The idea that the outcome would be different if this was a black cab, let alone an minicab, is laughable.
Some years a go, I was run down in a hit and run by a black cab, left semi-conscious in the middle of a blind S-bend. The passenger made the cabbie stop, got out to help me & he drove off. Police were completely uninterested (as soon as they'd ascertained that the driver hadn't driven off with any of the passengers' property), and the carriage office refused to do anything until the police investigation was concluded, then said that as the police hadn't charged him, and it was such a long time ago, they wouldn't do anything either.

PCO are only interested in the 'customer service' given by their drivers to paying customers.

Driving quality issues are strictly Road Traffic Act territory as enforced by Plod.

Have to say that I disagree here. The fare was booked through Uber and as such they do (or maybe that should be 'should') have some responsibility as agents.

If the driver had a fare in his car, or was on the way to pick up a fare then I believe that Uber 'could' be brought into this, should the cyclist decide to take legal action.

4ChordsNoNet wrote:

Have to say that I disagree here. The fare was booked through Uber and as such they do (or maybe that should be 'should') have some responsibility as agents.

If the driver had a fare in his car, or was on the way to pick up a fare then I believe that Uber 'could' be brought into this, should the cyclist decide to take legal action.

I think you're missing some legal background on how agents work in law. They're an agent, but that means acting on the principal's instruction, and the principal is liable, not the agent, for the agent's action.

The idea is that the agent takes no action which is not approved by the principal.

Try suing a letting agent... you'll find out loads of stuff.

The trouble is that the law can intervene to decide if a contract is a genuine contract or whether it creates another form of relationship - such as an employment relationship. That goes right the way back to some forms of haulage contracts in the 60s.
Uber could well find that, irrespective of what their contract says, a judge rules that they are a private hire operator, not merely an agency. That could open a whole new world of hurt for them outside London, where Boris seems to have some kind of love affair with them.