[Nfbmo] [Nfbmo} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, s...

K THINK thinkingk at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 12 03:37:37 UTC 2016


Hello, 
The taxi cab companies did this revision so that they will not be responsible for passengers who are injured. If you look under case.net you can search by cab company names where the judge has released all responsibilities from cab companies due to this revised statue. We as the riders have to go and change this statue so that we can be covered. 

They talk about the Uber drivers but one thing that is true "WE ARE COVERED IN THEIR VEHICLES". It is all about picking and choosing your battles. 

I feel that if drivers have to have liability coverage to cover people in their vehicles, Then surely if that is your company main business transporting people then they definitely need to have liability coverage for their passengers. 

We need to work very hard at changing this statue. 

Thanks, 
   Kim K 

P. S. YES!!! I enjoyed the NFB National Conference. Looking forward to next year.


-----Original Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan Flasar via Nfbmo
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 9:03 PM
To: nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: Re: [Nfbmo] [Nfbmo} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, s...

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

_______________________________________________
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




More information about the NFBMO mailing list