Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
But that can happen anyways can it not? What I mean whether or not its an uber driver with a fare or joe schmoe with a car full of buddies, is it not the same level of liability? Particularly if the city is not responsible for the licensing of said drivers...which they aren't.
Or maybe I am missing something?
|
No. It's not the same level of liability.
If Joe Schmoe has a car full of buddies, he's still covered under insurance. While I'm sure the city could still get sued, I'm going to assume the chances are less because insurance would be covering everything.
If Joe Uberdriver isn't covered (that's on the insurance companies and the uber driver not the city), the city opens itself up to litigation because now the damages need to be paid from somewhere, and it's not the insurance company. So if the city can't say they did their due diligence to prevent Uber from operation in city limits, I would have to assume that makes the case for the city successfully getting sued much higher.
The city isn't responsible for licensing said drivers, but they can be held responsible if they come out and say "we know your insurance isn't valid but we're going to allow this anyway".