· Premium Member
Mostly likely they have done a cost benefit analysis and figured the damages and costs of getting sued are cheaper than more thoroughly screening drivers.Uber has no lack of excuses when it comes to thier background checks. I think they just love being sued.
So this is an intentional risk they knowingly take in the hopes that they profit from it more than they pay for it.
It happens all the time. It's the same dance with different performers. It works like this example of the Ford Pinto:
During production, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the car's design. In rear-end crash tests, the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily. Despite this hazardous defect, Ford officials decided to manufacture the car anyway.
Safety proved not to be a major concern in the development process. The development specifications for the Pinto were that it "was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000."
The financial analysis that Ford conducted on the Pinto concluded that it was not cost-efficient to add an $11 per car cost in order to correct the flaw.
Benefits derived from spending this amount of money were estimated to be $49.5 million. This estimate assumed that each death, which could be avoided, would be worth $200,000, that each major burn injury that could be avoided would be worth $67,000 and that an average repair cost of $700 per car involved in a rear end accident would be avoided. It further assumed that there would be 2,100 burned vehicles, 180 serious burn injuries, and 180 burn deaths in making this calculation. When the unit cost was spread out over the number of cars and light trucks which would be affected by the design change, at a cost of $11 per vehicle, the cost was calculated to be $137 million, much greater then the $49.5 million benefit.