A married couple cannot sue Uber over severe injuries they suffered in a 2022 car accident due to a mandatory arbitration provision in the ride-sharing company’s terms of use, as ruled by the New Jersey Superior Court appellate division. (Read more)
In November 2023, a lower court denied Uber’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiffs Georgia and John McGinty. However, that ruling was reversed on September 20, 2024, in a unanimous decision by three appellate judges.
Georgia McGinty had agreed to Uber’s arbitration clause prior to the accident. The couple argued that their 12-year-old daughter agreed to the most recent terms when she ordered food via Uber Eats, and those terms were allegedly less specific about waiving the right to a jury trial.
Despite claims that the daughter, a minor, agreed to the terms, the appellate court ruled that legal precedent does not require specific language to waive rights to a jury trial. The court determined that the arbitration clause clearly demonstrates a waiver of the right to pursue claims in a judicial forum, thereby requiring disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration.
The ruling also stated that whether the daughter could legally agree to the terms will be decided by an arbitrator, following Georgia McGinty’s certification that her daughter was capable and frequently ordered food for the family.