Injured in a Rideshare | Arbitration Clause
Pennsylvania Superior Court Ruling: Uber’s arbitration clause — buried in the fine print of its popular app — is unenforceable; thus, the injured Uber passenger never waived her right to a jury trial. See CHILUTTI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 2023 P.A. Super 126 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023)
Background
Being a passenger in any vehicle in Pennsylvania is dangerous. In 2022, the number of people in PA injured in motor vehicle accidents totaled 67,012. Many of those were passengers in rideshares (or “ride-shares”) such as Uber or Lyft. So let’s say you’re the injured ride-share passenger. You file suit over it, requesting a jury trial. Only, Uber (or Lyft) moves to dismiss your lawsuit for your injuries, claiming you waived the right to a trial by jury, when you signed up for the Uber/Lyft app.
This is exactly what happened to the Plaintiff in Chilutti v. Uber.
Defending Civil Suit: Uber Asserts “Terms and Conditions”
In CHILUTTI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 2023 P.A. Super 126 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023), Plaintiff was an Uber passenger, hurt during a ride-share motor vehicle accident, allegedly caused by her Uber driver. Plaintiff filed suit against Uber in Pennsylvania and asked for a jury trial. Uber, then, moved to dismiss the claim, asserting that Plaintiff waived her right to a jury trial, per the “fine print” in her agreement with Uber. Allegedly, Plaintiff had agreed to proceed exclusively in arbitration outside of the courts. The trial judge granted Uber’s Motion to dismiss the case.
Plaintiff appealed.
Superior Court Evaluates Clause Buried in Ride-Share Agreement
Here’s how the Pennsylvania Superior Court described the issues before it on appeal:
Central to this case is whether a party should be deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial when they purportedly enter into an arbitration agreement via a set of hyperlinked “terms and conditions” on a website or smartphone application that they never clicked on, viewed, or read.
The injured-plaintiff (appellant) contended:
“Uber’s registration process failed to adequately communicate an offer to arbitrate in a definite manner, so as to create a meeting of the minds on a material and necessary detail of the bargained for exchange.”
However, Uber countered that the injured plaintiff: “received reasonably conspicuous notice of Uber’s terms and took actions demonstrating their assent to those terms.” Uber claimed it had provided hyperlinks to the Plaintiff.
The Superior Court’s Analysis
The Superior Court in CHILUTTI noted:
To determine whether arbitration should be compelled, we employ a two-part test: “The first determination is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists. The second determination is whether the dispute is within the scope of the agreement.” Smay v. E.R. Stuebner, Inc., 864 A.2d 1266, 1270 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted). “Whether an agreement to arbitrate disputes exists is a question of law.” Neuhard v. Travelers Ins. Co., 831 A.2d 602, 604 (Pa. Super. 2003). “When we review questions of law, our standard of review is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law.” Id.
Here, the Superior Court found it important that the Uber “terms and conditions” only appeared as a hyperlink. Uber failed to require new customers to click on the hyperlink to enroll with Uber:
Indeed, as indicated in the record before us, Appellants did not click on or access the terms and conditions before their registration process was completed. These facts were admitted by the Uber representatives. Rather, the evidence merely shows that they created a user account for the ride-sharing service.
This would render such a term a contract of adhesion, which is not enforceable in PA. The court further noted the term “arbitration” was ambiguous in Uber’s contract.
Other Issues – Limited Tort Waiver of Claims for Pain and Suffering
Although not an issue before the court in CHILUTTI v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 2023 P.A. Super 126 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023), it has already been decided that a person in a motor vehicle accident who had elected “limited tort” (limiting the right to sue for “pain and suffering”) is not bound by limited tort, when injured as a passenger in PA. As such, the limited tort doctrine does not preclude the rights of Uber or Lyft passengers, either.
Let’s Get Started!
Contact a Pittsburgh lawyer at our firm for help with any ride-share motor vehicle accident or injury in Pennsylvania. Our attorneys offer a free consultation today!
412.342.0992
