Really?
At least here in the UK there are laws about unreasonable contracts. I can't see a judge upholding those terms and conditions. Of course, things are different in the US..
Testing out Uber's new driverless vehicles in Pittsburgh may come with a price tag a little too high for some: death. According to The Guardian, which obtained a copy of the release that the car-ordering service requires people to sign before they get into the new fleet, passengers waive their right to sue the company in the …
@bazza
Really?
I think the measure of whether a contract is 'reasonable' or not is determined with due consideration to what the contract covers.
If you, essentially, sign up to test a new and potentially dangerous technology where there is an identifiable risk of injury and death that exceeds the risk associated with the more 'proven' option (i.e. a human-driven vehicle) then I think that a contract that states that you understand and accept that risk is not, necessarily 'unreasonable.
Would I do it? Hell no. But that's exactly my point - I can see that there is a real risk of injury and death involved.
I blindly support Uber, but this might be a turning point in my all out blindness. However, strangely, it appears in this text alone that one just acknowledges this. Which, OK I agree, this is an obvious outcome to riding in any vehicle. But, where is the exact "You can't sue" jargon to stand this up to the point where one can't sue?
Even if it's not true, as in these words mean nothing, I'm not exactly liking that Uber is trying to sponsor the sign your rights away parade that so many companies are doing. Of course, I can imagine such contracts exist in certain respects like hot air ballooning, sky diving, mountain climbing, etc., but they shouldn't with such common activities like driving. Actually, they can't exist, that would be all out carmageddon.