Former Taco Bell exec sues Uber driver he was filmed drunkenly beating for $5 million

[JSt0rm]

If a lawsuit is free speech then I think poor people who are wronged and are unable to fight decade long litigation wars are having their first amendment rights violated.

court appointed lawyers for the poor. Probably wont happen for civil cases. Its all a facade to make the system look balanced. We all know poor people lose and rich people win. The only thing the poor can hope for is that bit i the bible is true and the rich will all go to hell and they will all go to heaven. Personally thats a suckers bet. I would much rather be rich in the reality of life then pray on a after life. That was probably put in the bible so the poor wouldnt rise up and kill the rich.

 

[DCal430]

This ex taco bell executive might win, the uber driver likely did commit crimes in recording him. It is illegal in California to record someone else's voice without their express permission.

 

[Vic]

This ex taco bell executive might win, the uber driver likely did commit crimes in recording him. It is illegal in California to record someone else's voice without their express permission.

Mostly likely it will be found that entering the Uber vehicle represented a form of implied consent to recording.

 

[DCal430]

Mostly likely it will be found that entering the Uber vehicle represented a form of implied consent to recording.

Unless one should expect to be recorded when entering a taxi, there is no implied consent. California courts have required explicit notification that one is being recorded for their to be implied consent.

 

[Vic]

Unless one should expect to be recorded when entering a taxi, there is no implied consent. California courts have required explicit notification that one is being recorded for their to be implied consent.

The alternative, that Uber drivers aren't allowed to record passengers for their own safety, is not in the public interest.

 

[OutHouse]

Uber should defend the driver. They need some good publicity and this would be a way to show that they stand behind the people working for them.

i would love it if Taco Bell covered the drivers legal fees.

 

[OutHouse]

Unless one should expect to be recorded when entering a taxi, there is no implied consent. California courts have required explicit notification that one is being recorded for their to be implied consent.

ive been in many cabs that had stickers that said i was being video recorded.

do you sign a consent form every time you walk into a grocery store?

you are talking about California wiretapping laws and they do not apply in this case.

please post the court cases you are citing.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Yep. I would counter sue and say the same exact thing. The difference is the cab driver has what happened on camera. I would say he slapped me in the head so hard that I can't drive anymore.

Instead of suing for $5m, I'd sue for $100m. Think massive.

How in the hell did he not already sue him?!?

I think this clearly illustrates the real entitled group within society.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Unless one should expect to be recorded when entering a taxi, there is no implied consent. California courts have required explicit notification that one is being recorded for their to be implied consent.

Nope, that car is his store on wheels. He has every right to film within it, the same way the qwik-e-mart has a right to install cameras. Your notion that would enable him to win is laughable regardless.

 

[Jeff7]

Uber should defend the driver. They need some good publicity and this would be a way to show that they stand behind the people working for them.

I'm sure it'd have to be reviewed so that they don't risk setting an expensive precedent for themselves.

i would love it if Taco Bell covered the drivers legal fees.

Or send a letter to Golden politely "requesting" that he drop the suit and try to keep a low profile because they're tired of so many Google results for "Taco Bell" being about how one of their former execs assaulted an Uber driver who just wanted a drunk guy to leave his property.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I do hope this continues to stay in the news. the guy that sued over a pair of pants pretty much sued himself out of a job as a lawyer.

I hope this idiot does something of the same.

Hah, I remember that. Sued his cleaners for $67 million for losing his pants.

 

[Zaap]

The driver isn't planning to drive again for Uber, and is looking for a job right now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfzVJvTgMi8


... there just so happens to be an opening for a Taco Bell executive....

 

[Darwin333]

court appointed lawyers for the poor. Probably wont happen for civil cases. Its all a facade to make the system look balanced. We all know poor people lose and rich people win. The only thing the poor can hope for is that bit i the bible is true and the rich will all go to hell and they will all go to heaven. Personally thats a suckers bet. I would much rather be rich in the reality of life then pray on a after life. That was probably put in the bible so the poor wouldnt rise up and kill the rich.

Actually it says something like "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Unfortunately the rich figured this one out long ago. They put a whole camel into a big ass blender and squirted it right through the eye of a needle, easy peasy.

 

[OverVolt]

Yea, entitled little shit.

Really tells you about his mentality. But it doesn't tell me anything I don't already know about a guy who drunkenly punches his driver.

 

[momeNt]

Marketing "exec" not CEO folks.

 

[Mai72]

Victim mentality.

Yep, everyone's a victim.

 

[Mai72]

court appointed lawyers for the poor. Probably wont happen for civil cases. Its all a facade to make the system look balanced. We all know poor people lose and rich people win. The only thing the poor can hope for is that bit i the bible is true and the rich will all go to hell and they will all go to heaven. Personally thats a suckers bet. I would much rather be rich in the reality of life then pray on a after life. That was probably put in the bible so the poor wouldnt rise up and kill the rich.

Praying on an afterlife is a dangerous bet to make. I've always thought if there is an afterlife than that's great. It's like icing on the cake. I've also been aware that this life might be the only life I will get. Why give up on dreaming? I don't care how old you are. Colonel Sanders was in his mid 60s when he built his first KFC. He also failed over 80 times trying to get anyone to fund his idea.

I know life is hard for many people. Giving up and hoping for God to save you is not the answer. There is nothing wrong with being religious. But, I'd rather commit myself first to my life here on earth.

 

[MongGrel]

NM, should have read it more.

Former exec will win.

 

[momeNt]

Chances are the poor schmuck that won't be able to defend himself will be indentured for 20+ years since he won't be able to pay the fines.

Really a disgusting legal system we have that allows stuff like this to go on.

It really does pay to be rich, and the poor really are slaves, this news story is just another typical example.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Does that mean murder him?

I think it means give him a handjob while reading the bible maybe?

 

[Venix]

The attacker was a "Senior Associate Brand Manager," not an "executive." According to glassdoor.com, that position at Taco Bell pays ~$95k, far less than executive or even middle management compensation.

This seems to just be another case of the worthless American news media exaggerating to create a better story. An article about an "executive" is more sensational and interesting than one about some random no-name asshole with a fancy job title.

 

[TheGardener]

Yes anyone can sue. And many times a rich defendant will settle to get rid of the nuisance suit, even if they believe the suit has no merit. You just never know how a judge or jury will rule. It happens all the time.

Back in the 80s a 19 year old and his buddies, climbed a roof of a school to steal a floodlight. He fell through a skylight and suffered very severe injuries. His attorney claimed that he was just trespassing and the skylight wasn't safe. They sued for $8 million. The suit was later settled for $260,000 plus $1,200/month for life.

http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/

 

[Zaap]

The attacker was a "Senior Associate Brand Manager," not an "executive." According to glassdoor.com, that position at Taco Bell pays ~$95k, far less than executive or even middle management compensation.

This seems to just be another case of the worthless American news media exaggerating to create a better story. An article about an "executive" is more sensational and interesting than one about some random no-name asshole with a fancy job title.

That very well may be considered an executive office within Taco Bell. Executive doesn't mean CEO and CEO doesn't mean ONLY executive officer. It also has nothing to do with how much money the person makes.

 

[DCal430]

Nope, that car is his store on wheels. He has every right to film within it, the same way the qwik-e-mart has a right to install cameras. Your notion that would enable him to win is laughable regardless.

LMFAO not in California. If you are meeting a person in their office at their business and they can install cameras to record your conversation, that is a felony in California, unless they disclose their is a Camera.

 

[DCal430]

ive been in many cabs that had stickers that said i was being video recorded.

do you sign a consent form every time you walk into a grocery store?

you are talking about California wiretapping laws and they do not apply in this case.

please post the court cases you are citing.

Yes they do apply. The law applies to all audio recordings. Grocery store cameras do not contain audio. They have nothing to do with this.