Re: [OT] Uber driver kidnaps child; Uber offers mom $10 rebate

On 2025-04-22 3:21 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-04-21 4:34 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

2025-04-21 1:54 PM, Adam H. Kerman:

>

. . .

>

I wonder when the driver finally realized he had a leftover passenger
aboard? I'm guessing it was when the police finally found him otherwise
he'd surely have taken the kid back home on his own. Perhaps he didn't
have another customer, went home, and locked the car without realizing
it had a kid in it.

>
I've been wondering the same thing. Whilst driving off without realizing
the girl was still in the vehicle wasn't kidnapping, once he became
aware, if he took no steps to return to the child's home, at some point
it's going to become a crime.
>

Exactly. If the guy went home and then to bed, leaving the kid in the
car not knowing it was there, well that's one thing and hard to find
culpability. But if he realized the kid was there before he left the car
and did nothing, that's another story. I could picture him contacting
Uber for instructions and waiting to hear back. That situation could be
so unusual that it would take Uber a while to figure out what to do and
maybe the police rolled up while that was still playing out. (I'm
picturing someone at Uber trying to find a binder with policies in it
that covered that case and not being able to track it down right away.)
That might be enough to exempt him from charges too, even if it seems
obvious to us that he should just have gone back to the kid's house.
>
Maybe he was worrying about getting into trouble with Uber if he doubled
back? I'm guessing that they have trackers on the vehicles that are
contracted with them and maybe doubling back would be seen in an
unfavourable light. It might simply be perceived as incompetence and
count against the driver.
>
Hmm. I've never taken an Uber or Lyft but taxis always collect payment
at the end of the ride. If Uber and Lyft follow that same model, then I
have to wonder if the mother had already paid as she got out of the car?
I assume she must have or the driver would have waited for payment. But
maybe Uber and Lyft, knowing the pickup point and destination,
pre-calculate the fare and ding your credit card before they even arrive
at the pickup point so that the driver doesn't have to wait for payment
at the end. (I can see where the driver would like that since there's no
chance the customer would stiff them at the end of the trip.)

. . .

 That’s how it works. It’s all through the app. You can later adjust the tip
up and down through the app, but that’s it. You authorize payment through
the app at the time you order the ride.
>

Thanks for confirming that. I was guessing how it might work but had no idea what the reality was. Now I know :-)
In that case, the driver had no built-in incentive to wait around to get paid so it's natural that he'd skedaddle as soon as he thought he was done.

 

>

Here's an even scarier thought. Was there insurance while the child was
in the vehicle?

>

Some Uber and Lyft drivers rent vehicles, which means that commercial
insurance is in effect at all times. But if the driver is using a
personal vehicle, his own insurance prevents him from acting as a
commercial driver. All personal insurance policies prohibit this.

>

The way it works: Driving to and from the start and end of the trip
booked through the platform, there is no commercial insurance as this is
limited to the time between pickup and dropoff. The driver's personal
insurance isn't in effect as the insurance company will argue that, at
least during the time between receiving the call and heading to the
pickup point, the driver is in commercial service even though Uber and
Lyft don't cover this period. Having left the dropoff point and until
the driver receives the next call, it's harder to argue that personal
insurance isn't in effect.

>

Nevertheless, no one's personal insurance covers this scenario, in which
the child never exited the vehicle.

>

The insurance carriers for both commercial and personal liability will
fight against a claim if, say, the child were hurt. That also means the
driver was driving illegally without insurance, and his personal assets
are at risk in judgment.

>

Obviously Uber or Lyft can be sued, but the judgment will also go
against the driver unless the settlement from the platforms includes the
driver's liability.

>

Everything about using one's personal vehicle in commercial service
without commercial insurance is beyond idiotic as it can leave you
bankrupt.

>

I will assume that you are correct about the way insurance works in your
own country but I think it's different in Ontario.

>
I doubt that very much. The risk of commercial driving is entirely
different than the risk of personal driving. It's reasonable to assume
that personal insurance excludes coverage for commercial driving.
>

(Side question: isn't insurance law a state-level matter in the US rather
than a federal matter? If so, then Illinois may have much different
rules than other states.)

>
There's actually federal law denying the ability to sell coverage across
state lines. Insurance companies form subsidiaries in each state they
sell coverage in. There's enough "interstate" aspect to insurance that I
don't see why such restrictions apply. There's plenty of disbenefit to
in state risk pools. Certain medical specialties, for instance, have
very high cost liability. Obstetrics has huge liability. In small
states, the high cost of malpractice insurance due to the tiny risk pool
is great enough to keep many doctors from practicing in these states,
leading to shortages. This isn't a matter of consumer protection.
>
At the same token, states that don't experience wildfires aren't in the
same risk pool as California.
>

Here in Canada, every province has its own insurance system with
different requirements about coverage. In some provinces, like BC, all
the car insurance is issued by the government as I understand it. In
Ontario, there are many private insurance companies and no government
insurance at all. I don't know how the actuaries pool risks but I'm
assuming its on a provincial basis. That means tiny PEI or even tinier
(in population) Yukon/NWT/Nunavut are going to have much smaller pools
than Ontario, Quebec or BC.
>

I've seen questions on forms about what kind of driving you do
and whether it is commercial or not but I don't *think* you have to get
different insurance if you do a mix of personal and commercial driving:
you just pay a higher premium. I've never driven my own vehicle for
commercial purposes so I can't begin to guess how much more the premium is.

>
I don't know how blended coverage like that works, but there's
absolutely going to be a commercial policy. Tradesmen (who are often
independent contractors and not employees) will drive their own pickup
trucks or panel vans to job sites because they are carrying tools and
equipment, and may be delivering supplies that they themselves will be
installing. That requires commercial coverage. But there will be plenty
of times they drive their pickup for personal driving, say on a hunting
trip or just personal errands. I'm sure the actuaries have a way to rate
the risk and figure out an appropriate rate.
>
But no commercial liability coverage at all? No vehicle owner should be
in that position as he's personally exposed to liability from commercial
use of the vehicle.
>

. . .

You may well be right about all of that. I'll try to remember to find
out how that works in Ontario the next time I renew insurance. I've
actually toyed with the idea of delivery pizza or something like that as
a side hustle.
>

  

--
Rhino