Paper Example: Analysis of Legal Liability for the Conduct of Uber's Driver

In reverence to the services offered by Uber, the business organization wishes to put across some significant phenomenon problems, which make the Company operate as a corporate firm.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The main principles of the Company include

The actual express rights

The Company enters into an understanding agreement with its drivers. The deal involves dropping people from one point to the other. The agreement also means drivers are taking actions such as giving orders from the leading Company and its agents (Lobel, 2017). The forms of rights or authority delegation can be formal or informal, either orally or dully signed. The agents are required to drive the customers from the various destinations they want to move within the operation area (Malos et al., 2018).

Interestingly, the Company offers the driver and its customers a better deal in matters of handling. The customers may need reliability and affordability of the service, while the operating drivers may require the swiftest way to make a livelihood. Mechanization of better ways is necessary to enhance the handling of people within this paraphernalia. To deliver the company's rights, Uber drivers settle on a consensus of mutual agreement with their employers (Zwick, 2018). The need to compensate for this set of principles includes compliance of the set mandates by the management of the Company dully agreed in this principle.

Actual implied right

This actual, implied right is another agreement between the principal and the agents. The extraordinary involvement consists of principle employing agents (drivers). The rights have no defined specific rights for particular circumstances; in fact, the agents can rightly infer back to the policy for the event presented for him or her to partake. The rights provided under these laws imply the rights of the driver acts within the reasonability incidental and necessary for the active duties undertakings (Malos et al., 2018). What is the content of the implied rights? The case has no fixed proposals instead of dealing with the situation at hand. The determinants of the dealings include the set customs of doing business or professionalism. Under these rights, the Uber agents have the right to consult their delegated duties to their master employers for guidance (Lobel, 2017). In particulars, the directive to work in some locations with complications either weather, roads, among other commands directly from the top managing teams. Thus, the drivers have the legal obligation to infer back to the management in case of abnormality.

Apparent principle rights

The Uber Company does not agree with its agents but rather the third-party persons. This third-person are the customers who use their services. For example, when the principal gives its agent's rules, such as following a different route other than the normal one, due to bad weather. The agent cannot complain to the Company because the Company has apparent rights. The rights include represented word conduct or agreement with the third party. The necessity of the reason involves the agent to drive the customer as acting for Uber management (Lobel, 2017). Interestingly, the effect on the agent is notably not arguable since they do not have any limits or rights upon such formulations. This is because, in his line of duty, the driver must compel to effective delegation as directed by the top management.

Ratification rights

The ratification rights occur when no reasons have been instituted. However, the agreement of the principal and the agent contracts once ratification looms (Sanders et al., 2016). For example, in the process, the agent drops the customers when he has no right to partake of the same; the contract stands of the Company agree upon learning from the agent's actions.

Uber Company has liability for the conduct of its agents (drivers). The circumstance is well defined in the rules and regulations of the Company (Malos et al., 2018). When the agent workings are declared to be within the scope of apparent rights, then the Company is liable for its agent's conduct. The Company may also be held accountable for the misinformation and fraud committed with its agents when it is realized the workings were under the principle of apparent rights. For instance, the driver may be liable to the third party if the agents commit an accident, and the customers are injured in the process (Lobel, 2017). Interestingly, the dealings are different when other dirty plays are involved, like driving a customer while sexually assaulting her in the car. The subjection is above the Company since Uber is not entitled to such procedures.

The Company also takes some steps to limit the extends of its liability to the conduct of its drivers. The steps taken define the legal extension of the responsibility for the actions of the agents. For instance, when the behavior of the agent is alleged, the agent ought to act in full pursuit of their conscience particulars in case the allegation appears real. The seeking procedures involve the act of prudence. The situation when the agent is driving more than the required number of distance stretch to the actual location of the customer; it is upon the driver to act in full pursuit of his conscience. The prudence decision made by the driver is not limited to the situation of distance but also the condition of health measures. In the event, a customer falls sick while on the ride to a destination, it the driver to act mindfully (Lobel, 2017). Aspects of taking customers hospital rather than leaving him or her to continue suffering from the condition or worse. The contract does not provide for such measures, but this is the legal decision. The rights in emergencies are ignored for scenarios like when the agent takes the person to a nearby hospital for medical treatment.

Therefore, Uber Company should not limit the liabilities for the conduct of its agents (drivers). This includes the personal responsibilities of the agents. The Company needs to make third party handlings without holding accountable the actions unless the person agrees to be held responsible.

Thanks.

References

Lobel, O. (2017). The gig economy & the future of employment and labor law. USFL, Rev., 51, 51. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/usflr51&section=6

Malos, S., Lester, V., & Virick, M. (2018). Uber drivers and employment status in the gig economy: Should corporate social responsibility tip the scales?. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 30(4), 239-251. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10672-018-9325-9

Sanders, D. E., & Pattison, P. (2016). Worker characterization in a gig economy viewed through an Uber centric lens. Southern Law Journal, 26(2), 297. http://search.proquest.com/openview/742ef8f085a561c81189c1c226e73bb8/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=316219

Zwick, A. (2018). Welcome to the Gig Economy: Neoliberal industrial relations and the case of Uber. GeoJournal, 83(4), 679-691. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-017-9793-8