A woman who was severely injured in a car crash while traveling in an Uber in Cape Town, South Africa is pursuing legal action against the e-hailing service in Europe.
South Africa provides recourse for people involved in road-related incidents through the Road Accident Fund (RAF), but victim Jessika Nilsson has decided to seek assistance from the European Union, claiming that the RAF and the compensation offered by Uber are inadequate.
Nilsson was traveling in an Uber in Cape Town on 5 March when her driver allegedly attempted to run a red light at the intersection between Buitenkant and Caledon Street in the CBD, according to The Citizen.
During this manoeuvre the car was hit by a 4×4 and sent into the window of a corner shop, with Nilsson receiving serious injuries including internal bleeding, a sternum fracture, and five spinal fractures.
The Uber driver allegedly fled the scene before they were tested for substances in their system like drugs or alcohol by the police.
A later investigation found that the driver had only been operating on the platform for eight days, and that he may have falsified his Uber registration documents as the car’s VIN and chassis number revealed it was almost 12 years old, which is against the company’s policy.
Seeking recourse
Despite having access to the local RAF, Nilsson (a resident in the European Union), opted to contact legal services in the Netherlands to assist with her case.
South African law firm Cilliers and Associates argued that the victim should instead claim from the RAF, stating that Uber and its drivers are indemnified against liability.
“The [RAF] also serves to indemnify an insured driver or owner of a motor vehicle (this is the person who was negligent) against liability incurred as the result of loss or damage wrongfully caused to the third party,” said the law firm.
“It is clear from the quoted text that the driver (and therefore, by implication, Uber too) is indemnified from liability for an accident caused by him.”
However, the Amsterdam-based firm that Nilsson is using, Arslen and Ersoy Advocaten, provided a different take on the situation.
It claims that Uber is an intermediary and that using the service offered by its app creates a contract between the customer and the driver, and Nilsson downloaded the app in Europe.
“European lawyers see it differently, they see contractual breaches by a European company,” it said.
“It comes down to there being zero accountability and responsibility by using the RAF as a scapegoat when things go wrong.”
The ride-hailing service responded to the incident stating that the driver had valid background check documents and that it is prepared to cooperate with law enforcement to prove this.
The company referred to its claims policy where it is at the user’s discretion whether to make a claim to the RAF or seek reimbursement from Uber’s insurance partner AIG.
“Uber bears the cost of the insurance premium for the injury protection through AIG Insurance. To get assistance with medical treatment costs, the in-app claim form may be used or one may contact AIG,” it said.
However, Nillson took issue with AIG which she claims only offered R50,000 in compensation despite her medical bills being in excess of R1 million.
Speaking about the case, she said this is not just about fair compensation, but about improving the ride experience and quality of service for others who rely on Uber.
Join the discussion