Claiming that Uber had sacrificed customer safety for the sake of profit and expansion, Delhi cab rape victim sues the San Francisco-based firm. George Joseph / Rediff.com reports
A girl who was allegedly raped by an Uber cab driver in New Delhi has filed a civil suit against the San Francisco-based Uber Technologies at a California northern district court.
The suit, filed anonymously as ‘Jane Doe’ through attorneys Yuhl Carr group in California and Wigdor group in New York, demands a declaratory judgment against Uber directing it to stop unlawful acts and pay damages to the plaintiff for ‘all physical, monetary and/or economic harm, for harm to her professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfilment; punitive damages and attorney fees among others.
Douglas H Wigdor, lead attorney, said in statement: ‘Uber's focus on its bottom line over the safety of its passengers has resulted in what can only be described as modern day electronic hitchhiking. We intend to hold Uber responsible for the significant physical and emotional harm it has caused to our client, while simultaneously seeking a court order mandating that Uber initiate certain safety precautions that they appear unwilling to do voluntarily.’
Attorney Jeanne M Christensen, also associated with the Wigdor group, noted: ‘San Francisco Uber executives’ decisions to cut costs at the expense of customer safety forced our client to pay the ultimate cost. Her brutal rape by an Uber driver who was a known repeat sexual predator was a result of a global Uber policy that has far-reaching consequences.
‘We intend to hold Uber accountable for violence that could easily have been avoided had even a minimal background check been conducted.’
The suit said, ‘Through the imposition of a court ordered injunction mandating certain immediate safety measures, this lawsuit seeks to slam the brakes on Uber’s reckless worldwide expansion at the unfortunate expense of basic customer safety.’
The suit describes in detail what happened on the night of December, 5, 2014 in Delhi and also portrays a victim, who did not lose her courage in a life threatening situation.
‘The plaintiff was viciously raped and sexually assaulted by an Uber driver named Shiv Kumar Yadav. He drove plaintiff to a secluded and off route area of Delhi after she used Uber app to arrange a ride from a restaurant to her home,’ the suit claims.
‘Had Uber not sacrificed customer safety for the sake of profit and expansion, and actually cared about who it was employing to drive its cars rather than being preoccupied with claiming its share of the India taxi market, Plaintiff Doe would not have been viciously raped. In fact, a basic background check would have revealed that Yadav had a known propensity for violent and deviant conduct, including numerous arrests and rape and assault, which should have disqualified him from working as a Uber driver.’
The suit also notes that Uber went back from its promise to do everything to support the victim and family. 'Uber has avoided all contact with her and her family soon. It ignored the plaintiff’s request to be consulted about safety before restarting service in Delhi.'
'To pour salt on Plaintiff’s fresh wounds, Uber even taunted plaintiff by directly sending an email announcing this news and outrageously offering her a discount to begin riding again with Uber.’
The suit also describes how the police could not find the headquarters of Uber in Delhi and how they finally reached out to them.
The suit blames Uber for accepting a falsified character certificate of Yadav.
Uber re-entered the Delhi market even though the ban by the police was still continuing, which showed its contempt for Indian authorities, the suit said.
It also suggests implementation of several security measures urgently, including installing GPS, round the clock customer support, tamper proof video cameras etc.
When contacted, Uber sent a terse statement: ‘Our deepest sympathies remain with the victim of this horrific crime. We are cooperating fully with the authorities to ensure the perpetrator is brought to justice.’
