- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- fuckcars@lemmy.world
Why would any work towards making their tech better when you can just free yourself from the consequences of its mistakes.
Why would any work towards making their tech better when you can just free yourself from the consequences of its mistakes.
Taxi companies found a way. Just because a tech monopoly wants to say they’re different doesn’t actually mean they are. They can use that money to properly screen and train drivers and only once a best effort has been made (which again taxi companies have shown can be done) do they get lessened liability.
But agreed 100% on the tax them into the ground and build public infrastructure instead idea. Loads of people love trolleys and trains, never see anyone get excited about an Uber or a Lyft
Right but taxi companies did it the same way mcdonad’s did. Franchises…
Franchising changes how expansion is financed. It doesn’t magically change liability or operational requirements and is not relevant
Yes it does, mcdonald’s is not liable for a slip and fall at a franchise location.
Maybe but the franchise location still suffers the risk of getting shut down because the corporation doesn’t want to deal with the lawsuits. Or did you think that safety requirements where not in the Franchise agreements?
That’s factually incorrect. Look up Vicarious Liability suits which are are exactly that. A lawsuit where an injured party believes the franchisor is at least partially responsible due to various things which can include negligence in safety standards imposed on the franchisee. As with all law it gets complicated fast but there are definitely ways to hold McDonald’s accountable for things at a franchise location. They aren’t magically free.
What state? I am a lawyer in Texas
You’re either a liar or a lawyer I’d never fucking hire that’s for sure.
Here’s literally my first search result I find a lawyer talking about it in Texas
And here’s another five seconds to find it mentioned in a supreme court case
And five more seconds where it’s mentioned in Texas in a previous case
You clearly did not read your nonsense
Great counter argument. Really proves me wrong. 10/10
Because you’re clearly not the most intelligent. I’m mocking you because apparently you can’t even ctrl+f the case you fucking mentioned. “Vicarious Liability” is argued and mentioned right fucking in the case you mentioned previously (In Re Home Depot, sw.3d although I’ll grant the opinion is against it there the point it is a thing and is argued stands).
Fuck off