[alienasa]

I don't understand why we're getting up in arms about this.

1. When you ride a Bird scooter, you agree to accept liability for all injuries, possibly with the exception of gross negligence (even if you didn't read the fine print, you'd be insane to think it didn't say that).

2. Peña sued the city for not maintaining a sidewalk and causing his injuries.

3. Bird indemnified the city for all liability involving Bird scooters.

Those three things together make the situation that "seems abominable", but they're really quite reasonable. Basically the city isn't liable, and neither is Bird, and it's not actually a surprise to anyone except those writing breathless news stories.

[bckygldstn]

There's plenty to be up in arms about over forced arbitration and indemnity between well-funded corporations and customers just trying to get home safely after a night out.

Bird in particular likely knows 90% of their customers are violating their terms and conditions in some way. Between lack of enforcement from the government and legal indemnity from their customers, they have no incentive to improve the safety of their service.

Taken to extreme, why even have a legal system when you have to opt out of it to do anything?

[getcrunk]

Tbf I don't think the city should be liable. My quote is still remarkable if not absurd. Most people I know think our legal system is so convoluted and far removed from it's intention and I think the quote speaks to that