http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawsuit-filed-over-uber-attack_us_569d13e3e4b0778f46fa18c7

A former Taco Bell executive who was filmed appearing to drunkenly attack his Uber driver in a violent video that went viral last fall is reportedly now suing for $5 million.

In Benjamin Golden's countersuit against former driver Edward Caban, the 32-year-old ex-digital executive blames Caban for any injuries sustained during their violent Oct. 30 encounter. He also claims that the incident was illegally filmed, CNBC reported.

Golden's attorney, speaking to the news site, said they are working to have the dash cam video thrown out as evidence in the criminal case filed against him in November.

That video appears to show Golden grabbing Caban by his hair and repeatedly hitting him in his face after he's ordered to get out of his vehicle for being drunk.

and desperate pleas for forgivenes were all horseshit huh?

What a worthless piece of shit. I hope all the karma destroys him.

the point is to exclude the video as evidence in the criminal trial. i suspect the suit isn't serious but is being used to prop up the passenger's claim that he didn't expect to be video recorded in the car b/c had (what he says is a) reasonable expectation of privacy in the car.

i see it. i think.

good stuff.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It's a private car as opposed to a taxi so maybe not.

Yeah most of the car services I use have a disclaimer that there is a camera in the car. I am pretty sure it is required by law.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I dunno if it's a car service. I dunno if the car had a notice re: the camera.

i.e. there's no municipal/state licensing requirement, no regulations to adhere to, no business insurance, etc...

however in this case the law may be on the side of the driver:

California Vehicle Code Section 26708

(13) (A) A video event recorder with the capability of monitoring
driver performance to improve driver safety, which may be mounted in
a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest
removed from the driver, in a five-inch square in the lower corner of
the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag
deployment zone, or in a five-inch square mounted to the center
uppermost portion of the interior of the windshield. As used in this
section, "video event recorder" means a video recorder that
continuously records in a digital loop, recording audio, video, and
G-force levels, but saves video only when triggered by an unusual
motion or crash or when operated by the driver to monitor driver
performance.
(B) A vehicle equipped with a video event recorder shall have a
notice posted in a visible location which states that a passenger's
conversation may be recorded.
(C) Video event recorders shall store no more than 30 seconds
before and after a triggering event.
(D) The registered owner or lessee of the vehicle may disable the
device.
(E) The data recorded to the device is the property of the
registered owner or lessee of the vehicle.
(F) When a person is driving for hire as an employee in a vehicle
with a video event recorder, the person's employer shall provide
unedited copies of the recordings upon the request of the employee or
the employee's representative. These copies shall be provided free
of charge to the employee and within five days of the request.


If the driver or Uber can show that the passenger is or should have been aware of the camera's presence then this lawsuit will go nowhere.

---------------------------

"Where was the peace when we were getting shot? Where's the peace when we were getting laid out?
Where is the peace when we are in the back of ambulances? Where is the peace then?
They don't want to call for peace then.

goes to search and seizure in criminal cases. Unless there's a state statute against unconsented recording, I dont see how that reasoning would get the evidence thrown out.

Who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an uber cab anyway? Smh.

and the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to use it. I dunno that this will work but I see it

workers... how is that even up for debate?

I dunno that this private car had such notice.

I dunno that any of this is going to work but I see what the defense is trying to do.

.
.
.