A couple who suffered severe injuries after being involved in a accident during an Uber (UBER) ride are being denied the right to sue the company for an unexpected reason: their daughter’s pizza order.
While John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were rear seat passengers in an Uber they took in 2022, their Uber driver chose to run a red light and the Uber car was T-boned by another car.
Don’t miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet’s free daily newsletter
Georgia McGinty suffered multiple physical injuries such as rib and spinal fractures, with some requiring surgery, as a result of the accident, according to a recent court filing. John McGinty sustained a fractured sternum and fractures to his left arm and wrist, leaving him with “diminished use and sensation in his left wrist.”
Related: Disney+ makes startling reversal in wrongful death suit
In February 2023, the couple filed a lawsuit against Uber for the accident, and six months later, Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the couple’s complaint.
Uber argued that the couple has no right to sue after Georgia McGinty agreed to Uber’s Terms of Use, including its arbitration agreement, when she ordered food through the Uber Eats app.
An arbitration agreement removes the right for a party to sue if a dispute occurs. Instead of appearing before a court, the party that believes they were wronged would have to go through arbitration, which is a private dispute resolution process.
The couple claimed that their daughter, who is a minor, consented to Uber’s Terms of Use through the Uber Eats app without their knowledge when she borrowed her mother’s phone to order pizza from a local restaurant through the app.
Uber logo is seen on a car in New York City, United States on July 13, 2024.
“Uber contends the ‘Checkbox Consent’ was activated when plaintiffs’ daughter was getting updates on the driver’s progress because the application was refreshed. After they finished eating, Georgia certified that she got her cell phone back and tipped the driver. Georgia argued she and John never had the opportunity to see the pop-up, and it was their daughter who intentionally or unintentionally clicked on it while monitoring the delivery,” – according to the court filing.
A new court decision allows Uber to dodge the lawsuit
Uber’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and force arbitration was first denied by a lower court after it claimed that Uber Eats’ arbitration clause didn’t clearly specify to users that they were waiving their right to pursue litigation.
However, last month, an appellate court in New Jersey appealed that decision, ruling that Uber’s Arbitration Agreement was “valid and enforceable,” removing the couple’s ability to sue the company.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, the couple revealed that they were shocked by the court’s decision.
Related: Uber Eats driver refuses to deliver a personal order due to beliefs
“We’re incredulous that the court could interpret things the way that they did — that our daughter’s click through to order a pizza some random night could mean that if we were catastrophically injured in a car accident, that we couldn’t recover for our very serious injuries and the financial harm that was done to us,” said Georgia McGinty in the interview.
More Trending Social Media News:
Fyre Fest 2 tickets are being purchased at startling pricesLinkedIn influencer faces outrage over post about firing employeePopular luxury brand goes viral for bizarre shoe design
Arbitration agreements recently faced scrutiny from consumers
This is not the first time a consumer was at odds with a major company for being blindsided by an arbitration agreement they didn’t know they agreed to.
In August, Disney faced backlash after Disney World argued that a man cannot sue it over the death of his wife, who died after having a severe allergic reaction to food that was supposed to be “allergen-free” at a restaurant at Disney World, because of terms he agreed to when he signed up for a free trial of Disney+.
Disney later agreed to waive arbitration and have the matter settled in court due to the “unique circumstances” of the case.
“At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss,” said Josh D’Amaro, chair of Disney Experiences, in a statement to CBS News in August.
Related: Veteran fund manager sees world of pain coming for stocks
