By Daily Mail (U.S.) | Created at 2024-09-30 04:45:19 | Updated at 2024-09-30 11:33:00
7 hours ago
A New Jersey couple suffered 'life-changing' injuries after crashing in an Uber -- and have now learned they can't sue the company.
Georgia and John McGinty of Princeton, New Jersey, were told by a judge they're bound by a sneaky clause in Uber's terms and conditions which states they cannot take a case to a jury in a court of law.
On March 31, 2022, the couple were passengers in a vehicle operated by Uber driver Jia Wen Zheng when Zheng ran a red light and t-boned a vehicle, according to court documents.
The McGintys suffered serious physical injuries. Georgia sustained cervical and lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, a protruding hernia and traumatic injuries to her abdominal wall and public floor.
She underwent multiple surgeries and was unable to work from the accident to April 1, 2023.
Georgia (left) and John (right) McGinty of Princeton, New Jersey were told by a judge they're bound by a sneaky clause in Uber's terms and conditions that states the cannot take a case to a jury in a court of law
On March 31, 2022, the couple were passengers in a vehicle operated by Uber driver Jia Wen Zheng when Zheng ran a red light and t-boned a vehicle, according to court documents
John had a fractured sternum and his arm and wrist had severe fractures that required him to have a open reduction and internal fixation with a bone graft to just address the arm fractures.
He now has diminished use and sensation in his left wrist.
In February 2023, the couple filed a lawsuit against the company, Zheng and the driver Zheng hit.
Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration - which is when they ask the court to enforce a contractual arbitration clause and require the parties to resolve their differences through arbitration instead of litigation.
But those injuries wouldn't be compensated by the company because Georgia had accepted the terms and conditions listed in the company's Terms of Use that users have to accept before using the app.
In the court documents, it said the McGinty's had stated they don't remember seeing a 'clickbox' on the date of January 8, 2022. They argued they believed their daughter Julia, then 12, had clicked it while they packed for an upcoming ski trip.
At 6.15pm that day, Julia ordered food from a restaurant. The couple said they didn't remember if she had ordered it by herself or if Georgia helped her, but they recalled their daughter holding the phone to check the delivery drivers location.
Uber argued it was activated as their records show and that Georgia tipped the Uber driver when the food was delivered.
In February 2023, the couple filed a lawsuit against the company, Zheng and the driver Zheng hit
In the court documents, it said the McGinty's had stated they don't remember seeing a 'clickbox' on the date of January 8, 2022. They argued they believed their daughter Julia (right), then 12, had clicked it while they packed for an upcoming ski trip
Originally, the New Jersey court denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration saying it was unenforceable due to the agreement being unambiguous.
But Uber would appeal, dragging the lawsuit out until September 20, when the Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in the company's favor.
They wrote in a per curiam opinion featured in the court documents: 'We hold that the arbitration provision contained in the agreement under review, which Georgia or her minor daughter, while using her cell phone agreed to, is valid and enforceable.'
The couple told the BBC: 'How would I ever remotely think that my ability to protect my constitutional rights to a trial would be waived by me ordering food?'
On September 20, the Superior Court of New Jersey's Appellate Division ruled in the company's favor
The couple told the BBC: '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 another case of a company utilizing an arbitration clause, Disney claimed in a May 31 filing, that a widower whose wife died after suffering a severe allergic reaction at a theme park restaurant couldn't sue the company because he had previously signed up for a free one-month trial of its Disney+ streaming service.
Kanokporn Tangsuan, 42, suffered a deadly allergic reaction on October 5 last year after she and her family dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub and Restaurant in the Disney Springs, Walt Disney World's outdoor shopping center.
The family claimed their waiter assured them the food would be allergen-free.
Her husband Jeffrey Piccolo filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Florida, claiming Walt Disney Parks and Resorts was negligent and failed to properly train their staff about food allergies.
But Disney sought to dismiss the suit and argued it should instead be sent to arbitration because the terms and agreements of its streaming service contract which includes a 'binding arbitration clause,' court records show.
