New York — In a legal twist with far-reaching implications, a New Jersey couple injured in a serious Uber accident has been denied the opportunity to sue the company due to an arbitration clause they unknowingly agreed to during a prior Uber Eats transaction. John and Georgia McGinty, both of whom suffered severe injuries in the March 2022 crash, were recently informed by an appellate court that their claims must be resolved through arbitration rather than a jury trial, citing terms of service they accepted while ordering food months earlier.
The accident occurred when their Uber driver recklessly ran a red light, causing the vehicle to be T-boned by another car. The impact left Georgia with multiple fractures throughout her body, including injuries to her spine and ribs, requiring surgeries and long-term rehabilitation. Her husband, John, suffered from a fractured sternum and lost function in his left wrist. The couple has described their ordeal as both physically and emotionally devastating, with lasting financial repercussions.
What has made their pursuit of justice particularly difficult is the court’s decision that the arbitration clause in Uber’s terms of service also applies to their personal injury claims related to the crash. The couple asserts that the acceptance of these terms was not intentional. According to the McGintys, their daughter, using Georgia’s phone, clicked to accept the terms during an Uber Eats order, not realizing it would have any bearing on a future Uber ride. However, the court ruled that the terms of service, which cover both Uber Eats and Uber rides, are “valid and enforceable” and bind the couple to resolve their dispute outside of the court system.
Uber, in its defense, has emphasized that Georgia had agreed to the terms multiple times, including once in early 2021, long before the accident. The company also pointed out that the McGintys continued to use the Uber app for rides, reinforcing the legality of the arbitration clause. In its ruling, the appellate court overturned a previous decision by a lower court that had sided with the McGintys, arguing that the arbitration clause was not clearly presented at the time of acceptance.
For the McGintys, the court’s decision has added to their anguish. In a statement, they said they were “heartbroken” by the ruling and expressed outrage that a company like Uber could evade legal accountability through complex contractual language. “This ruling shows that consumers can be stripped of their right to a fair trial by unknowingly agreeing to terms buried in an app’s fine print, with no regard to the actual service that caused the injury,” they stated.
Their attorneys are now evaluating their next steps, including a potential appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The Broader Implications of Arbitration Clauses
The McGinty case is part of a growing wave of legal battles over the use of arbitration clauses, which critics argue deprive consumers of their right to a public trial. Many companies, including Uber, Disney, and others, include these clauses in their terms of service, requiring users to resolve disputes through private arbitration rather than in court. While proponents of arbitration claim it is a faster, more efficient way to settle disagreements, opponents argue that it often favors corporations and limits transparency.
One recent example involved Disney, which attempted to enforce an arbitration clause in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the widower of a woman who died after suffering an allergic reaction at one of its restaurants. However, Disney reversed its position after public outcry, allowing the case to move forward in court. The incident has fueled the ongoing debate over the fairness of arbitration, with many consumer advocates pushing for reforms.
For the McGintys, their legal journey continues, but they face an uphill battle as they challenge the validity of a system that, in their view, prioritizes corporate protection over consumer justice.
