Emily Normandin-Parker had booked an Uber for home with a friend on 12 August 2023, before her friend became sick and vomited in the car, court documents show.

Her parents said the driver pulled over to the side of the highway and forced the women, who were intoxicated, out of the car, after which Normandin-Parker was hit and killed by another vehicle.

Uber had argued that the driver was an independent contractor, and the company was not responsible for his actions.

"Emily did everything Uber tells riders to do - she made the responsible choice not to drive and we trusted Uber to get her home safely," her parents said in a statement about their daughter, a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles. "That trust cost our daughter her life."

Judge Richard Stone ordered the rideshare company to pay the money to Normandin-Parker's parents after a five-day arbitration process, according to the law firm Panish, Shea, Ravipudi, which represented the family.

Arbitration is an alternative way to resolve disputes outside of court with a qualified arbitrator, in this case a retired judge.

Lawyers representing the family said that after leaving the women on the highway, the driver, Vu Tran, did not call for help for them. He instead pulled off to call Uber and demand they charge Normandin-Parker a cleaning fee, the lawyers said.

Tran showed "far more worry for his new car than he did for his passengers", Judge Stone said, adding that he could have taken the exit and dropped the women off at a safe location.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Totally avoidable tragedy - the worst kind.

I have zero sympathy for the driver although I expect this decision haunts him. Abandoning two inebriated individuals to their own devices in a dangerous place is wildly reckless and irresponsible. I get where the guy is coming from though… just a terrible error of judgement; probably born of frustration. No excuse though.

Uber trying their best to do a Pontius Pilate regarding what is, regardless of the law, essentially still an employee driving a company vehicle? Zero surprise. It’s their whole modus operandi, pick and choose what parts of doing business they like (I.e. make profit on) and ignore the rest (I.e. employment law, corporate responsibility, insurance, fleet management, fuel, etc)

Profit before people, to the nth degree. It’s wild that it’s apparently all perfectly legal…

Edit The LA Times source now listed in this thread changes my opinion of the driver, for the worse, dramatically.

  • source