Assaulted Uber Driver Sued By Attacker For Filming The Attack

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto) 01/16/2016 at 10:15 • Filed to: None

6

47

I have written previously about how you need to be careful when it comes to running a video or audio recorder in your car. A few non-believers always chime in to say I am paranoid. No, I am an attorney.

Consider the case of the Uber driver who filmed his encounter with the seemingly-drunk man in his back seat. The one who was pummeling him before the driver pulled out the pepper spray. Now the man in the backseat !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for $5 Million.

The altercation took place in California, where there is an eavesdropping statute. That !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! the consent of “all” parties for a recording to be made.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying you should be able to assault Uber drivers when you are drunk.

Nor am I saying this man will win his lawsuit.

But I am saying it might have helped the driver if he had not publicized the existence of this tape so widely. He could have just sat on it and pulled it out later to defend himself if need be. But if he hadn’t gone on and youtubed it, he probably wouldn’t have gotten sued.

Follow me on Twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Hear my podcast on iTunes: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing law for 24 years, almost exclusively in consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! He wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

This website may supply general information about the law but it is for informational purposes only. This does not create an attorney-client relationship and is not meant to constitute legal advice, so the good news is we’re not billing you by the hour for reading this. The bad news is that you shouldn’t act upon any of the information without consulting a qualified professional attorney who will, probably, bill you by the hour.

pjhusa > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:18

5

Good on him for filming it, but I definitely would have saved it for later, or at least made it Private.

gin-san - shitpost specialist > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:21

5

It’d be nice to see this dropped and a counter-suit against the attacker. Fuck that guy.

Rainbow > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:22

4

I don’t know the wording of the law exactly, but wouldn’t this fall under the same rules as security/surveillance cameras? It’s the guy’s private car, being used for business purposes, and I doubt that stores are required to get customers’ consent before using their security cameras and stuff.

McMike > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:22

0

Sooooo does this mean that no surveillance camera footage in California can be used as evidence?

SteveLehto > Rainbow 01/16/2016 at 10:24

2

Most stores have the cameras in obvious places and many of them have prominent signs warning you that they have cameras. The guy’s car might not be so private either, now that he is ubering with it.

davedave1111 > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:29

0

Don’t you lot disbar lawyers for being party to obviously vexatious litigation? No, wait, of course you don’t .

Svend > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:31

5

I love America.

‘How dare you film me assaulting you’.

‘I burnt my groin driving away from McDonalds with a cup of hot coffee between my legs’.

‘How was I supposed to know I had to press the STOP button when I exit my car with STOP/START feature’.

Surely Uber, taxis and any such vehicle are entitled to film what happens within the vehicle for their own protection as long as a sign is visible to the passenger.

SteveLehto > davedave1111 01/16/2016 at 10:31

3

She barely counts as a lawyer.

SteveLehto > Svend 01/16/2016 at 10:33

0

Yes, a sign might have helped him here. But there is no indication of any such sign.

Svend > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:36

1

But surely in a public place there is no right to privacy, the vehicle is the place of employment for the driver so surely it counts as business premises.

SteveLehto > Svend 01/16/2016 at 10:41

4

Probably needs to be litigated. If these are business places then wouldn’t they be regulated like businesses? Oh wait, Uber has gone to great lengths to claim that they are somehow NOT a typical business.

This won’t be settled for a while. But if I was an Uber driver, I would put a huge sign on the back of my seat that said, “SMILE! You’re on camera.”

Svend > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 10:49

4

Many I know used to have these stickers.

But over time it became the norm and it’s sort of expected so a lot of the signs that wore down or ripped off were never replaced. Many of our city buses have about 12 internal and external cameras.

But I think the resounding thing here should be ‘don’t be a dick, and behave with dignity or stay home’.

jariten1781 > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 11:11

10

A few non-believers always chime in to say I am paranoid. No, I am an attorney.

These are not mutually exclusive.

jariten1781 > McMike 01/16/2016 at 11:14

0

IIRC for surveillance cameras to be legal in CA they must be conspicuous, not record audio, and record no private spaces.

McMike > jariten1781 01/16/2016 at 11:31

0

Right, but what about the IP camera we (playing the role of a CA suburban homeowner) have on our front porch that recorded the UPS guy stealing our packages from the front porch? Or the stabbing out in the street?

jariten1781 > McMike 01/16/2016 at 11:40

0

If it records audio you’re probably illegal. If not and it’s visible you’re likely good... but if it can see into a neighbor’s window (even if not intentional) you might be illegal.

It’s one of those areas where the law hasn’t caught up to reality. They’ll either need to pass new laws or the courts will set a strong precedent here at some point or another.

Chasaboo > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 11:42

6

Ain’t America great? You can sue the guy you beat the shite out of, and you can be a white terrorist holding federal buildings hostage.

Frenchlicker > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 11:43

1

I like our state law. If I remember correctly it is perfectly legal to secretly film someone on or in your property as long as one does not attempt to use it for commercial reasons.

SteveLehto > Frenchlicker 01/16/2016 at 11:46

0

Which state is that? In many states you can secretly record a conversation so long as you are party to it.

Frenchlicker > davedave1111 01/16/2016 at 11:47

1

Wow, it's even crazier once you get past the Obama claims.

Frenchlicker > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 11:52

2

Indiana, on a whim I researched the law. To be honest it could have changed since I looked it up a year or two ago.

McMike > jariten1781 01/16/2016 at 11:54

1

*Dumps audio

*Posts to youtube

DeLM > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 12:04

1

now if he put a sticker on the seat or on the back side window letting the “customer” know he was going to be filmed, would that have bypassed the law. If it is visible on the door before he gets in , is he then consenting to being video taped by entering the vehicle? just curious.

SteveLehto > DeLM 01/16/2016 at 12:08

2

That’s what I would suggest. These laws all address secret recording or recording without consent. Just put up a big obvious sign that says, “You are on camera and being recorded. SMILE!”

Most people wouldn’t mind if they were told up front.

DeLM > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 12:37

1

thanks, now will this also work for video taping police officers when you get pulled over? like for example... “car and contents are under video surveillance at all times”

SteveLehto > DeLM 01/16/2016 at 12:38

1

Tough call. Some police will ask you to stop. The question is whether you have to or not (and if you don’t have to, whether it might be wise to stop regardless).

Berang > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 13:03

1

I don’t know about the audio portion of the recording, but so far as the visual part, I would defend it on the grounds that the vehicle was travelling on public roads, and visible from public property. Anything that is on or can be seen from public spaces may be photographed.

So far as we know he may well have had a notice on/in the car that he has a camera and that everything in the car is subject to surveillance (this seems to work for TV shows, so why not a car?) and therefore anybody entering the vehicle is consenting.

SteveLehto > Berang 01/16/2016 at 13:06

2

Defend it all you want; even the defense will cost you a fortune.

I agree that the whole lawsuit seems misplaced. I am merely pointing to this as one of the perils we should be aware of when we think about using cameras and/or audio recording devices.

Berang > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 13:19

2

He just needs something like this on the back of his headrest:

Those wishing not to be filmed may exit the vehicle.

SteveLehto > Berang 01/16/2016 at 13:21

0

I agree.

wallaby13 > SteveLehto 01/16/2016 at 13:30

0

So Steve, what do I google to find out if my state (MD) has this? And since my state is tiny it would be helpful to know WV, PA, DC, VA as well.

SteveLehto > wallaby13 01/16/2016 at 13:33

1

I found the law by googling “maryland eavesdropping statute.”

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland…

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > wallaby13 01/16/2016 at 16:25

0

Your states website should also have the state legal code published on it. Go to Maryland.gov or whatever your states website is and search for “state laws” or “legal code” and you should be able to come up with it.

QADude > SteveLehto 01/17/2016 at 13:35

1

Virtually every taxi I’ve ridden in here in CA has that exact sign in them letting you know you’re being recorded.

T e t t e s > Svend 01/17/2016 at 14:16

1

“‘I burnt my groin driving away from McDonalds with a cup of hot coffee between my legs’.”

See the documentary ‘Hot Coffee’ and realize the media completely mischaracterized that case. The lady should have gotten MORE money.

punksmurph > SteveLehto 01/17/2016 at 15:19

0

Also realize that the camera is in plain sight, it is just under the rear view mirror and easily noticed by anyone that look forward out the car. The law in California is already decided on cars a public places, as long as the car is on a public street it is considered a public place. You have no right to privacy. The recording is legal because you can freely record people in public without consent. I don’t think putting it up on YouTube should matter as long as the recording is legal as well. I hope this idiot losses his ass in court and the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank.

SteveLehto > punksmurph 01/17/2016 at 15:36

0

I don’t think the law is as clear as you might think. The car is in public; inside the car is still relatively private.

I think he should lose too, but I am just pointing out the vagaries of the law.

ayatollahofrocknrolla > Svend 01/17/2016 at 16:23

2

Regarding the McDonalds coffee incident, you need to watch the 2011 documentary “Hot Coffee”. The documentary takes away all the myths and misconceptions about that incident. The 80 year old women burned was in the drivers seat (not driving) and the car was parked, the particular McDonald’s had been warned many times and received numerous complaints about their coffee machine being overheated to a dangerous temperature, and the elderly women required skin grafts and surgery to recover. In the beginning the women wanted payment for surgery only, but McDonald’s refused, so she then sued for the millions. If McDonald’s had originally paid for the hospital bills, they would not have been sued for and lost millions.

punksmurph > SteveLehto 01/17/2016 at 16:40

0

I will have to dig out the case law on this, I’m no lawyer but I have had to contact one for this very issue for a client. Had to install video equipment at a store and the owner wanted audio as well for 2 of the 8 cameras. He wanted the same thing for his work vans once he saw how well it worked. Based on precious superior court rulings the inside of a vehicle is public when it is a) on a public street and b) being used to transport the general public. There was a similar case that has already gone through the courts. I will have to find it on Lexisnexis.

edit: he did have a sign at the store and in the car, but a simple I am recording also helps as well. From the video the driver at the start makes that statement.

punksmurph > davedave1111 01/17/2016 at 16:43

1

Oh god, this woman lives not far from me. He dental office was run out of business and she lost a local election badly as well. She pops up every so often for local issues as well. Luckily I have not had the displeasure of meeting her when I attend or work big local charity events. It is a fear though, from what has been expressed to me she is a huge ass hole.

evil2win > SteveLehto 01/17/2016 at 17:00

1

If a person can sue someone else for the consequences that occur after they get drunk and attack said person perhaps we need to look at laws that allow this. The guy claims this video doesn’t show the real him, but this law suit begs to differ.

Svend > T e t t e s 01/17/2016 at 17:57

0

No food outlet should be making a drink so hot but also you shouldn’t be putting anything you know to be generally hot between your legs, an certainly not while your driving.

SteveLehto > punksmurph 01/17/2016 at 19:55

0

There has to be more to it than that. Otherwise, I could plant a bug in someone else’s car and get away with it if they were transporting the public.

Darigaaz > McMike 01/18/2016 at 00:55

0

Only the po po can destroy evidence.

SilverBRADo totaled his beigeslushboxmatrix > SteveLehto 01/18/2016 at 11:20

1

However, I would not drive people around in my car or a company-owned car without recording it. (Unless I absolutely had to and it was illegal). However, I wouldn’t put it on YouTube. I would show it to the police, prosecutors, Uber, and maybe people who asked me how I got beat the fuck up.

T e t t e s > Svend 01/18/2016 at 22:58

0

“an certainly not while your (sic) driving.”

dude, this is exactly the ignorance i’m railing against. she wasn’t driving :( she was the passenger in a parked car in the parking lot, adding cream to the coffee she had just purchased at the drive-thru.

they coffee they served her was WAY too hot for consumption. at 190 degrees, it could cause third-degree burns within seconds, and there had already been nearly 1,000 burn complaints.

please, i beg you to watch the documentary. it was an eye-opener for me.

Svend > T e t t e s 01/18/2016 at 23:46

0

In my original post I did not mention a specific incident, you did in your reply .

Also in my reply:

“No food outlet should be making a drink so hot but also you shouldn’t be putting anything you know to be generally hot between your legs, an certainly not while your driving”

Nor does it state I was referencing your reply and was a general statement to not putting hot liquid between your legs and certainly while not driving which has happened on several occasions.

Take care and good evening.