[Nfbmo] [Nfbmo} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, s...
DanFlasar at aol.com
DanFlasar at aol.com
Tue Jul 12 02:03:12 UTC 2016
Gary,
I believe Kim had sent out an eamil some months ago in which she or
someone she knew was injured in a cab while riding in a cab and was told the
cab company was not liable.
Dan
In a message dated 7/11/2016 3:37:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:
Hello, Kim. I hope you had a good time at the convention.
I am coming late to this thread, and I am not good at reading legalese. It
seems to me that the statute deals with either drivers who are uninsured or
insurance companies who are insolvent. Are you certain that this statute
frees anyone who operates his business commercially from being responsible
for any liability regarding his passengers? It seems to me that Debbie was
involved in an automobile accident while riding in a taxicab and that they
were forced to pay for shoulder surgery for her.
Warmly,
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of K THINK via
Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 9:16 PM
To: NFB of Missouri Mailing List
Cc: K THINK
Subject: Re: [Nfbmo] [Nfbmo} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to
blind
man, service dog
Hello everyone ,
Here is the statue for Missouri and it is the same revised statue for all
of
the other states in the United States. The taxi cab companies DO NOT cover
their passengers {Us - the riders}!!!!
***Missouri Revised Statutes***
Chapter 379
Insurance Other Than Life
Section 379.203.1
August 28, 2015
Automobile liability policy, required provisions--uninsured motorist
coverage required--recovery against tort-feasor, how limited.
379.203. 1. No automobile liability insurance covering liability arising
out
of the ownership, maintenance, or use of any motor vehicle shall be
delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any motor
vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless coverage is
provided therein or supplemental thereto, or in the case of any commercial
motor vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, any employer having a fleet
of
five or more passenger vehicles, such coverage is offered therein or
supplemental thereto, in not less than the limits for bodily injury or
death
set forth in section 303.030, for the protection of persons insured
thereunder who are legally entitled to recover damages from owners or
operators of uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness or
disease, including death, resulting therefrom. Such legal entitlement
exists
although the identity of the owner or operator of the motor vehicle cannot
be established because such owner or operator and the motor vehicle
departed
the scene of the occurrence occasioning such bodily injury, sickness or
disease, including death, before identification. It also exists whether or
not physical contact was made between the uninsured motor vehicle and the
insured or the insured's motor vehicle. Provisions affording such insurance
protection against uninsured motorists issued in this state prior to
October
13, 1967, shall, when afforded by any authorized insurer, be deemed,
subject
to the limits prescribed in this section, to satisfy the requirements of
this section.
2. For the purpose of this coverage, the term "uninsured motor vehicle"
shall, subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, be deemed to
include an insured motor vehicle where the liability insurer thereof is
unable to make payment with respect to the legal liability of its insured
within the limits specified herein because of insolvency.
3. An insurer's insolvency protection shall be applicable only to accidents
occurring during a policy period in which its insured's uninsured motorist
coverage is in effect where the liability insurer of the tort-feasor
becomes
insolvent within two years after such an accident. Nothing herein contained
shall be construed to prevent any insurer from affording insolvency
protection under terms and conditions more favorable to its insureds than
is
provided hereunder.
4. In the event of payment to any person under the coverage required by
this
section, and subject to the terms and conditions of such coverage, the
insurer making such payment shall, to the extent thereof, be entitled to
the
proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from the exercise of any
rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization
legally
responsible for the bodily injury for which such payment is made, including
the proceeds recoverable from the assets of the insolvent insurer;
provided,
however, with respect to payments made by reason of the coverage described
in subsections 2 and 3 above, the insurer making such payment shall not be
entitled to any right of recovery against such tort-feasor in excess of the
proceeds recovered from the assets of the insolvent insurer of said
tort-feasor.
5. In any action on a policy of automobile liability insurance coverage
providing for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally
entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured motor
vehicles, the fact that the owner or operator of such uninsured motor
vehicle whether known or unknown failed to file the report required by
section 303.040 shall be prima facie evidence of uninsured status, and such
failure to file may be established by a statement of the absence of such a
report on file with the office of the director of revenue, certified by the
director, which statement shall be received in evidence in any of the
courts
of this state. In any such action, the report required by section 303.040,
when filed by the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle, shall be
prima facie evidence of lack of insurance coverage and the report, or a
copy
thereof, certified by the director of revenue, may be introduced into
evidence in accordance with section 303.310.
(L. 1967 p. 516, A.L. 1971 H.B. 85, A.L. 1972 S.B. 458, A.L. 1982 S.B. 480,
A.L. 1991 H.B. 385, et al.)
So remember when you are riding..... YOU ARE NOT COVERED!!
KIM K.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Shelia Wright
via
Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 7:17 PM
To: 'NFB of Missouri Mailing List' <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Shelia Wright <sbwright95 at att.net>
Subject: Re: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to
blind
man, service dog
Not really. Many cab drivers drive their own vehicle. The alternative is
usually one of renting a car by the day which eats into the driver's
earning
potential.
The same type of issues with dog guides come up with regular cab companies
too. The difference is that the regular cab driver sometimes will just be a
no show as they keep driving. Others are more bold and site allergies,
religion, or fear of dogs as why they can't take you in their car.
I don't even think the cab companies all cover injury to the driver or
pasengers.
Discrimination is very real and it must be addressed when it occurs.
Regulations don't always ensure non-discrimination or passenger safety.
Programs like Uber and lift are newcomers I'm glad we have as transpo
rtation
options. Let's address the problem drivers and hold Uber responsible for
carrying out the settlement they have recently agreed upon. Let's not
conclude that the service as a whole is problematic. I get really weary of
people trying to justify why someone discriminated against one of us.
Shelia
-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan Flasar via
Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:12 PM
To: nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind
man, service dog
And this is exactly the problem with Uber, or Lift or any other service
that
puts all the risk on the 'contractor' (Uber drivers are not considered
employees, legally). A cab driver drives for a company vehicle, carries
company insurance, is paid a salary and receives all tips on top of that.
The more they drive, the nore they make, at little personal risk.
U
Uber drivers pay for everything themselves (gas, insurance, maintenance
), provide their own vehicle, and are not allowed to accept tips. If an
Uber driver gets in an accident, it's tough luck for the driver - he is
out
everything. If a cab driver is in an accident, the company bears the cost
- the driver is out nothing, though he could lose his job if he is at
fault.
So this is the problem - a cab is just as much a public conveyance as a
bus or a train or a plane - there are hard fought laws that guarantee the
right of people to bring their service dogs into such vehicles.
But when it's your own car, that's something quite different. Unlike a
cabbie, an Uber driver DOES take his car home, and if a family member is
allergic to dog fur, that's a legitimate concern.
Right now, the status of Uber drivers is in legal limbo - they are
not considered to be employees of the company, do not have assigned
shifts,
have no benefits whatsoever, and can refuse to take on riders for their
own reasons.
Full disclosure, Uber is just the latest example of the eroding
status of workers rights. Uber has been thrown out of cities and
countries
all over the world, primarily because it's business model is designed to
evade
the 'public' part of 'public transportation'). I hope Uber is taken
to
court over this issue . Uber has had many challenges to it's business
model in the last few years - they were thrown out of Austin, Texas
because they refused to comply with state law that all cab drivers have
their fingerprints scanned for criminal records. Right now they skirt
public safety laws via their business mnodel - courts may help to sort
this
out.
And of course, not all Uber drivers will refuse to allow a service dog
in their vehicle, but it appears that right now, they are under no legal
obligation to do so.
This case could be a game-changer.
Dan
In a message dated 7/8/2016 6:29:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:
His daughter is allergic to dogs, so he didn't want to allow a service dog
in his vehicle.
Source:
http://www.fox4news.com/news/u-s-world/170689636-story
We have all heard stories of drivers refusing service to dog handling
teams
on the grounds they are allergic or fear dogs. But Uber introduces a new
wrinkle into this battle. Since they use their own private cars, they can
claim that relatives are allergic to dogs to refuse service.
This is not something to be overlooked in light of the proposed settlement
with Uber now pending in the court.
Regards
Daniel Garcia
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/sbwright95%40att.net
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/thinkingk%40hotmail.com
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthlink.net
_______________________________________________
Nfbmo mailing list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com
More information about the NFBMO
mailing list