The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a look:
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.
Well it's still a "crime", technically, but for companies at Google/HSBC/BP-scale the consequences are more like those for a misdemeanor -- i.e. you might pay a trivial fine, and maybe get a little egg on your face, but that's pretty much it. Whereas for an individual or a small-timer, the analogous violation would be treated as felony-class, or worse.
I don't think you can make that assertion. All the devices (meter, GPS, &c) in the cabin of a cab are set up for hands-free operation. Even when I've been in a cab where the driver is on the phone (which is often), he's invariably been using an earbud or Bluetooth headset (or, occasionally, speakerphone, which can be annoying).
The contention in the suit, however, seems to be that Uber's app is designed not to be hands free, and on that basis asserts negligence on Uber's part (where "negligence" is defined as "actions a reasonable person would deem likely to cause serious injury or death that are willfully undertaken despite that risk" — or something to that effect; lawyers reading along at home please correct or clarify as needed).
Only the state can formally accuse you of a crime. The complaint accuses Uber of a variety of torts under a variety of theories, and includes accusations necessary to seek punitive damages ("The conduct of the Defendants and each of them was engaged in with fraud, oppression and/or malice, and was in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others ...").
There is significant overlap between the elements and standards necessary to warrant punitive damages and criminal negligence statues, but they aren't identical and the two processes are entirely separate in terms of how and whether they proceed.
> All the devices (meter, GPS, &c) in the cabin of a cab are set up for hands-free operation.
I have never been in a cab with a hands-free meter or GPS. Does a hands-free taxi meter even exist? They're pretty analog devices with buttons you push to stop or start them.
"Hands free" doesn't mean you must never touch it. I've never seen a cabbie futz around with the meter in transit; it's not part of their normal operation.
Uber's app, however, requires poking at your smartphone screen.
Using a GPS requires poking at your GPS screen -- have you ever been in a cab with a hands-free GPS? Do you think that when a cabbie without a current fare gets radioed with a pickup location, he pulls over to enter the address in his GPS?
Ideally, cabbies and Uber drivers make all their necessary communication noodling while stopped, in between fares. In reality, both frequently distract themselves with both the necessary navigational/fare stuff they have to do with phone/GPS/meter and unnecessary calling/texting besides.
Does it? I can't find it. It looks to me like someone is playing a game of implications. It says the app handles pickups in a way that is unsafe to interact with while driving, but there is no claim that such a thing was happening at the time of the accident.
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.
Is that driver in the specific? I thought it was the general case.
Okay with a more thorough search I found an actual claim of the specific driver being distracted on page 9 of the suit, not sure why I didn't find it before.
