By: Jessica Black

On August 20, 2021, a California judge issued a decision striking down a ballot measure in the state that had allowed rideshare companies to classify drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The measure, known as Proposition 22, allowed rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft to deny drivers employee benefits and job protections such as the right to sick pay, minimum wage, and health benefits. It also provided a liability shield that allowed Uber and Lyft to evade responsibility for the actions of their drivers.

Ride-hailing and delivery service corporations including Uber, Lyft, Postmates, Instacart, and DoorDash spent more than $200 million attempting to influence Californians to support the ballot measure. Uber and Lyft went so far as threatening to stop providing services in the state if the measure was not passed.

Lyft Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit brought by investors of its initial public offering (IPO). The case, In re Lyft Inc. Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 19-cv-02690, alleges that Lyft failed to disclose a number of safety issues prior to the IPO. These issues include the pervasive sexual assaults by its drivers and defective brakes that affect its bike share fleet. 

The lawsuit claims Lyft deliberately failed to report the safety information in an effort to market itself as more socially responsible than Uber. Uber is also facing a shareholder lawsuit about its disclosures on passenger safety and other issues ahead of its 2019 IPO.

Both Uber and Lyft have been the subject of immense criticism because they have failed to ensure that passengers are protected against sexual assaults by their drivers. Hundreds of passengers continue to be victimized by rideshare drivers each year.

A recent Robinson Helicopter crash has left its pilot hospitalized. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is investigating a helicopter crash that took place just after 6:30 a.m. on August 11, 2021 in Prospect Heights, Illinois. Unsurprisingly, the helicopter involved was an R44 manufactured by the Robinson Helicopter Company.

Thankfully, the pilot and sole occupant of this latest R44 crash survived the ordeal. Reports indicate that the pilot took off from Chicago Executive Airport around 6:39 a.m. and reported a mayday due to engine failure just one minute later.

The pilot told WGN News that the engine failed upon takeoff, and he implemented emergency procedures, which allowed him to do a running landing. The helicopter’s rotor hit a pole on the way down.

By Shawn Kasserman and Brian Baloun

After weeks of resistance, more than 40 injured children, and a precipitous stock decline, Peloton has followed the advice of safety regulators and advocacy groups and recalled more than 125,000 units of its latest treadmill model, Tread+. It is now offering full refunds for the $4,295 machines, effective until November 6, 2022.

The move comes seven weeks after Peloton’s CEO, John Foley, announced that he had learned of one death and a “small handful of incidents” related to children getting trapped underneath the newly released treadmill.

By: Timothy S. Tomasik and Eddie Hettel

Contrary to what airlines often assert, in many cases, victims of airline crashes can recover for both their physical injuries and the psychological injuries attributable to the crash. Under Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention of 1999, a multilateral treaty concerning compensation for the victims of air disasters, psychological injury alone is not sufficient for a claimant to recover damages against an airline. However, courts have awarded damages for such injuries that are “traceable to” the crash itself, so long as a physical injury is also present.

Historically, courts required a mental injury to “flow from” a physical injury to be compensable. See Eastern Airlines v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (1991) (passengers on flight with imminent belief of crash in Atlantic Ocean could not recover for mental injuries alone); see also In re Air Crash at Little Rock Arkansas, on June 1, 1999, 291 F.3d 503, 511 (8th Cir. 2002) (in accordance with the “flowing from” rule, plaintiff could only recover emotional damages which flowed from her physical injuries, not the incident itself). However, these cases were decided under the Warsaw Convention, the predecessor to the Montreal Convention.