They sued Uber after an accident. But a pizza is getting in the way of the case

A New Jersey couple was returning home from dinner in an Uber in March 2022 when their driver collided with another car, leaving them with serious injuries, including broken spines and ribs.

The couple, Georgia and John McGinty of Princeton, New Jersey, sued Uber nearly a year later. Now, their effort to take the case to court may be hampered by a terms of service agreement they claim their 12-year-old daughter signed when ordering pizza using Georgia McGinty’s Uber Eats account.

A New Jersey appeals court ruled last month that the settlement’s arbitration clause — which says most disputes between Uber and its customers must be litigated privately — was “valid and enforceable,” reversing a ruling by a lower court that would have allowed the couple’s personal injury lawsuit to be heard by a jury.

The car accident left the McGintys seriously injured. Georgia McGinty, 51, suffered cervical and lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, a protruding hernia and other injuries. She underwent multiple surgeries and was unable to work for over a year, until April 2023. John McGinty, 58, suffered a fractured sternum and severe fractures to his left arm and wrist, and has yet to regain full use of his pulse.

“This was like a bomb going off in our lives,” said Georgia McGinty, adding that the accident was devastating to “our health, our emotional well-being, our financial well-being” and “our ability to care for our young daughter.” .

John McGinty said, “We are in constant pain every day.”

They are seeking damages, although their lawyers declined to specify an amount.

According to the ruling, the McGintys said in court that on the night of January 8, 2022, their daughter asked if they could order food while they were preparing for a ski trip. Uber records show that Georgia McGinty logged into her Uber Eats account on her phone and checked a box next to the statement “I have reviewed and agree to the Terms of Use.”

The McGintys stated that they did not recall seeing a pop-up with the terms of use agreement and claimed that it was actually their daughter who checked the box before placing the order.

After Uber filed a motion to compel arbitration and asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, the lower court denied the request, stating that the agreement presented to Uber Eats users did not clearly explain the difference between arbitration and court.

But on September 20, the appellate division of the New Jersey Superior Court reversed that decision. The appeals court argued that arbitration clauses did not always need to have such explicit language, that Georgia McGinty had previously signed Uber agreements waiving the right to a jury trial, and that she had given her daughter the authority to sign the agreement at the hand over your phone.

Georgia McGinty said she and her husband were “really shocked” by the court’s decision.

“We are incredulous that the court could interpret things the way they did — that our daughter’s click to order a pizza on a random night could mean that, if we were seriously injured in a car accident, we would not be able to recover for our injuries very serious and for the financial damage that was caused to us”, she said.

They plan to appeal, but because the three-judge panel was unanimous in their decision, they do not have the automatic right to do so, and the path forward could be challenging, said their lawyer, Evan Lide.

“The reality is that no one reads these agreements and Uber knows it,” Lide said, arguing that the company had “robbed my clients of their constitutional right to a jury trial.”

In a statement, Uber referred to the appeals court ruling, reiterating its argument that Georgia McGinty had agreed to terms that included an arbitration clause when she signed up for the Uber app in 2015 and on subsequent occasions.

The company also stated that the driver involved in the accident no longer had access to the platform.

Courts have historically sided with companies in disputes over arbitration agreements, said Ross B. Intelisano, an attorney who regularly represents plaintiffs in such cases. Arbitration is typically used to resolve complicated business disputes, he said, because it is generally cheaper and quicker than going to court.

But Intelisano said those agreements were not always clear or presented in an understandable manner.

“Who’s going to read a 14-page arbitration agreement on their phone while ordering Chick-fil-A?” he said.

Ben Farrow, a lawyer who frequently practices arbitration, said he was not surprised by the appeals court’s decision, given the ubiquity of arbitration clauses.

“Arbitration clauses have been advancing steadily for a long time and are more widespread,” Farrow said, adding that it has become easier for companies to create terms of use agreements and that more people are consenting to them to use online services.

He said it was “really just a matter of time before they start impacting people like this.”