A New Jersey couple, Georgia and John McGinty, are facing a significant legal setback after being informed they cannot pursue a lawsuit against Uber due to the terms of service they accepted while using the app.
The couple is bound by a clause that prevents them from taking their case to trial, as state judges ruled that they had previously clicked a confirmation button agreeing to these terms multiple times.
The McGintys contend that they were unaware they were forfeiting their right to sue the company for damages resulting from the crash. Notably, the last time they agreed to the terms was when their daughter, then 12, used Uber Eats to order food.
Mrs. McGinty expressed disbelief at the implications, stating, “How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?”
In response, Uber maintained that its Terms of Use clearly state that such claims should be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. The company clarified that it was the plaintiff, not her daughter, who had agreed to the terms.
Arbitration, in this context, involves resolving disputes via a third-party arbitrator instead of through the court system. Legal experts indicate that arbitration often results in lower financial settlements for plaintiffs.
This situation mirrors a broader trend where corporations utilize arbitration clauses to limit liability, similar to Disney’s earlier attempts to employ similar legal provisions in a wrongful death case. Disney ultimately reversed its stance after facing public scrutiny.
Daily Pain and Ongoing Struggles
On a fateful March day in 2022, the McGintys’ Uber ride ended in catastrophe, leading to extensive medical consequences. Mrs. McGinty suffered spine fractures and serious abdominal injuries, spending a week in critical care.
She recalled, “I had a horrible post-operative infection and almost died during this time,” adding that her ordeal prevented her from caring for her child, who was enduring her own health challenges.
John McGinty sustained severe injuries, including a fractured sternum and a shattered wrist, leaving him in constant pain and with diminished hand function. He stated, “I am in pain every day” and emphasized the accumulating medical debt from their treatments, with further interventions anticipated for Georgia.
The couple attempted to invoke their seventh amendment rights to a jury trial, but Uber countered that the arbitration clause in its Terms of Use prohibited judicial proceedings. The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately sided with Uber, validating the arbitration agreement that Georgia had accepted on several occasions.
Mrs. McGinty raised concerns about the implications of this ruling, questioning how one could assert that she had “authorized my child to waive our rights to go to a trial if we’re injured in a car accident.” She expressed disbelief over the logic involved in such a decision.
Understanding Arbitration
Arbitration clauses are prevalent in agreements with large corporations, as noted by personal injury attorney Ted Spaulding. An arbitrator, who functions similarly to a judge, decides disputes after considering arguments from both sides.
The enforceability of these clauses can vary by state, complicating legal recourse for victims of accidents involving corporations. In another notable case, Disney initially claimed that a man could not sue them over a wrongful death due to an arbitration clause, but later opted to proceed with a jury trial after public backlash.
Despite the legal principles at play, critics argue that such clauses can unfairly strip individuals of their rights, emphasizing the importance of clarity in the contracts people agree to.
The McGintys described the ramifications of the Uber incident as “absolutely devastating” for their family. Georgia noted that their daughter, now 14, has faced significant emotional trauma as a result of the circumstances.
Reflecting on the challenges, Georgia lamented that “years of her life with her parents were taken away,” while John expressed pride in their daughter’s resilience, stating, “She’s a fighter, like her parents.” They are determined to teach her valuable lessons in adversity and strength amidst their ongoing recovery.
Uber reiterated that the court found the plaintiff had consented to its Terms of Use multiple times, asserting its commitment to road safety and legal compliance.
