>But as Uber created the transaction between the two parties, it also seems reasonable that Uber should be responsible for getting recompense from the carjacker
In other words, the party facilitating the transaction should also provide escrow/insurance? I'd agree it's nice if the facilitator did that, but absent any explicit guarantees by the facilitator, I'm not sure why that would create a legal obligation for them to do that.
>Even if that’s not the law today, I think a legal framework that allowed you to get compensated from a broker responsible for your interaction would place the incentives in the right places.
I'm failing to see how this actually prevents cases like this. Is the passenger a serial carjacker or something? Is uber refusing to cooperate with police? To me this feels less "place the incentives in the right places" and more "pass the buck to uber because they're big and bad".
In other words, the party facilitating the transaction should also provide escrow/insurance? I'd agree it's nice if the facilitator did that, but absent any explicit guarantees by the facilitator, I'm not sure why that would create a legal obligation for them to do that.
>Even if that’s not the law today, I think a legal framework that allowed you to get compensated from a broker responsible for your interaction would place the incentives in the right places.
I'm failing to see how this actually prevents cases like this. Is the passenger a serial carjacker or something? Is uber refusing to cooperate with police? To me this feels less "place the incentives in the right places" and more "pass the buck to uber because they're big and bad".