Emily Normandin-Parker had booked an Uber for home with a friend on 12 August 2023, before her friend became sick and vomited in the car, court documents show.
Her parents said the driver pulled over to the side of the highway and forced the women, who were intoxicated, out of the car, after which Normandin-Parker was hit and killed by another vehicle.
Uber had argued that the driver was an independent contractor, and the company was not responsible for his actions.
"Emily did everything Uber tells riders to do - she made the responsible choice not to drive and we trusted Uber to get her home safely," her parents said in a statement about their daughter, a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles. "That trust cost our daughter her life."
Judge Richard Stone ordered the rideshare company to pay the money to Normandin-Parker's parents after a five-day arbitration process, according to the law firm Panish, Shea, Ravipudi, which represented the family.
Arbitration is an alternative way to resolve disputes outside of court with a qualified arbitrator, in this case a retired judge.
Lawyers representing the family said that after leaving the women on the highway, the driver, Vu Tran, did not call for help for them. He instead pulled off to call Uber and demand they charge Normandin-Parker a cleaning fee, the lawyers said.
Tran showed "far more worry for his new car than he did for his passengers", Judge Stone said, adding that he could have taken the exit and dropped the women off at a safe location.
19 Comments
Unique_Emerald_Sol_I@sh.itjust.works · 57 pts · 6d
I definitely don't understand the full nuance at play here, but hearing that Uber has to pay $40M after trying to weasel out of it with the "he's just an independent contractor" BS sounds good to me. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 6d
That is correct. They also thought that arbitration would lead to them paying less than if the family sued them, but they were wrong thankfully.
Unique_Emerald_Sol_I@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 6d
Hooray! ٩( ^ᴗ^ )۶
I mean, I'm not celebrating the woman's tragic death (nor do I expect a happy ending for the driver in any event) but it's good to hear Uber is being properly punished. I'd love for companies like them that try to claim separation from its own workers to either die off or be forced to operate ethically instead of all this arbitration and "independent contractors" BS.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 5d
The arbitration makes this much less of a win sadly, because it means that this isnt setting a legal precedent and next time it could easily go the other way.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 5d
But for the family it's a huge win, because arbitration awards generally aren't appealable outside of cases of fraud involving the arbiter.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 20 pts · 6d
Maybe Uber will seek some damages from the driver.
I get it. She puked in his car. He forced her out, onto a highway, and she died. I think he owns some responsibility. Arguably more than Uber.
Switorik@sh.itjust.works · 31 pts · 6d
It is illegal to walk on the majority of highways in the states. He was breaking the law by forcing them out. I believe the driver could have been charged for willful negligence.
velma@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 6d
He owns the responsibility, but he was also a representative of Uber at that time.
Professorozone@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 6d
I agree. The women didn't use the VuTran app to get a ride. They used the Uber app.
stoly@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 6d
Their insurance most definitely covered this. The insurance may go for damages.
ReignOfTerror@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 5d
I worked for Uber in the past, and I had people puke and spill shit in my car. I always just finished the ride and then contacted Uber about it. What's done is done, kicking them out isn't going to get rid of the puke, it's just going to make it unsafe for them to get home because usually if someone is drunk enough to puke they're drunk enough that they can't walk. Also I'd say both are to blame here, because yes the driver is mainly at fault, but I distinctly remember Uber pressing us about the fact that we didn't need any special insurance because when we were driving for them we were under their insurance. Not sure if that's even true or not, but this was around 2015
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 5d
My wife did both. I did Lyft exclusively for a couple weeks. Had quite a few drunk girls in my car (usually the guys hid it better)? But yeah, I saw it as my responsibility to get those girls home (or wherever they were going) safely and I cared for them like I'd expect another man to care for my little sister. Waited until they were inside before leaving, stuff like that. I can't imagine kicking a drunk and vulnerable young woman out in any area she's unfamiliar with.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 5d
He was working for uber. Uber isn't a human heing, really it's a document a corporate charter. Everything it could ever be liable for are the things humans do working as agents for the Uber corporate entity.
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 5d
Uber has the same rights as human beings so it probably is viewed as human by the justice system.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 5d
It doesn't, it has a different set of rights, which are arguably much greater than our meager notion of human rights under us law.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 5d
this source doesn't even mention that the driver WATCHED HER GET HIT, SAW SHE WAS DEAD and didn't call 911 and drove off.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-17/woman-was-killed-when-uber-driver-left-her-on-freeway-ubers-been-ordered-to-pay-40-million
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 5d
Totally avoidable tragedy - the worst kind.
I have zero sympathy for the driver although I expect this decision haunts him. Abandoning two inebriated individuals to their own devices in a dangerous place is wildly reckless and irresponsible. I get where the guy is coming from though… just a terrible error of judgement; probably born of frustration. No excuse though.
Uber trying their best to do a Pontius Pilate regarding what is, regardless of the law, essentially still an employee driving a company vehicle? Zero surprise. It’s their whole modus operandi, pick and choose what parts of doing business they like (I.e. make profit on) and ignore the rest (I.e. employment law, corporate responsibility, insurance, fleet management, fuel, etc)
Profit before people, to the nth degree. It’s wild that it’s apparently all perfectly legal…
Edit The LA Times source now listed in this thread changes my opinion of the driver, for the worse, dramatically.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
Perhaps even highways should have footpaths along side.
Jarix@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 6d
Will never happen. It would encourage people to walk alongside the highway and no one is going to take that liability I'm betting