Couple in a severe Uber crash can't sue because of an Uber Eats order

An Uber sign is seen in a ride share vehicle at the Nashville International Airport, Friday, Aug. 30, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. (George Walker IV / AP Photo)

New York -

A married New Jersey couple that was in a severe accident during an Uber ride can’t sue the company because they and their daughter agreed to arbitration when they accepted the terms of service for a separate Uber Eats order, a court has ruled.

John McGinty and Georgia McGinty were sitting in the back seat of an Uber ride in March 2022 when the driver sped through a red light and was T-boned by another car resulting in “serious physical, psychological, and financial damages,” a filing said.

Georgia sustained several fractures throughout her body, including cervical, lumbar, spine and rib fractures and other physical injuries that required surgeries and other procedures. Meanwhile, John has diminished use of his left wrist and a fractured sternum.

They tried taking Uber to court for a jury trial, but an appellate court recently ruled they can’t because they previously agreed to Uber’s updated terms and conditions requiring arbitration, which are the same in the Uber Eats and Uber ride app.

The couple said it was their minor daughter using Georgia’s phone who agreed to Uber Eats’ terms of service clicking a button that verified she was 18 years old, but an appellate court said that the company’s terms are “valid and enforceable” and that they include an acknowledgement that “disputes concerning auto accidents or personal injuries, will be resolved through binding arbitration ‘and not in a court of law.’”

Uber, in response, told CNN that Georgia McGinty “agreed to Uber’s terms of use, including the arbitration agreement, on multiple occasions,” including in early 2021 and took Uber rides after agreeing to those terms.

“While the plaintiffs continue to tell the press that it was their daughter who ordered Uber Eats and accepted the terms of use, it’s worth noting that in court they could only ‘surmise’ that that was the case but could not recall whether ‘their daughter ordered food independently or if Georgia assisted,’” an Uber spokesperson said.

The McGintys said in a statement to CNN that they’re “surprised and heartbroken” and that the appellate court’s decision has “exacerbated the pain and suffering we’ve experienced since the collision.”

“We are horrified at what the court’s decision suggests: A large corporation like Uber can avoid being sued in a court of law by injured consumers because of contractual language buried in a dozen-page-long user agreement concerning services unrelated to the one that caused the consumers’ injuries,” the McGintys said.

Prior to this most recent ruling in September, a lower court said Uber’s arbitration clause wasn’t enforceable because the pop-up with the terms of service “fail[ed] to clearly and unambiguously inform plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum.”

Uber appealed that decision, and the judges agreed with the company that its terms of services were enforceable.

The McGinty’s attorneys told CNN they’re reviewing the decision and will “likely” petition the New Jersey Supreme Court.

Anger over arbitration

It’s the latest case that highlights the intricacies of the terms of services having binding arbitration agreements that users agree to with many companies. In August, Disney reversed course on a dispute over terms of service in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widower of a woman who died after eating at a resort restaurant, saying the matter can now proceed to court.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff Jeffrey Piccolo alleged that his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, suffered a fatal allergic reaction from a meal she ate at a park restaurant in 2023. But Disney tried to get the lawsuit tossed by asking the court to move the dispute to arbitration, meaning the case would not go before a jury or otherwise continue in court.

Disney’s argument was that Piccolo had allegedly entered into a subscriber agreement when signing up for a Disney+ trial years ago that requires users to arbitrate all disputes with the company. However, the company changed its position.

“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,” Josh D’Amaro, the chairman of Disney Experiences, said in a previous statement.