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.
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.
PoppaGeorge Member since Nov 07th 2004 10384 posts
Tue Jan-19-16 02:12 PM
13. "they're prolly going to play up that Uber isn't a legit car service" In response to Reply # 8
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.
4. "I thought the reasonable expectation of privacy" In response to Reply # 2 Tue Jan-19-16 09:58 AM by Meadow
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.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
