Condarco-Quesada disputes ruling, says arbitrator ‘was wrong’
Arbitration documents released Thursday by the family of Emily Normandin-Parker, 23, have identified Luna Moore as the friend riding with her that night and named the 73 freeway in Orange County as the location of the fatal stop, the family’s attorneys said. The documents also make public the reasoning behind Arbitrator Richard A. Stone’s earlier finding that Uber is “vicariously liable” for the driver’s negligence, a determination that ordered the company to pay $40 million to Normandin-Parker’s parents.
Stone, a retired California judge, rejected Uber’s argument that it operates only as a technology platform connecting riders and independent drivers and ruled instead that Uber should be treated as a common carrier—an entity or individual that transports people or goods.
The incident began on a night out in Orange County, the documents show. Normandin-Parker and Moore, who had been together that evening, hailed an Uber. During the ride, the driver pulled over on the 73 freeway after Normandin-Parker vomited in the car. While Moore and the driver argued over a cleaning fee, Normandin-Parker got out of the car, wandered into oncoming traffic and was struck by another vehicle, the family’s attorneys said.
Normandin-Parker’s parents accused both the driver and Uber of negligence. In arbitration, Uber countered that it was “a technology company that provides a software platform connecting riders with independent third-party drivers who perform the transportation.” Under California’s Proposition 22, Uber and Lyft drivers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees—a designation the company has used to argue it cannot be held liable for drivers’ actions.
Stone rejected that framing. In the documents released by the family’s attorney on Thursday, he wrote that Uber should be treated as a common carrier and therefore held vicariously liable for the incident. Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine under which one party can be held responsible for the negligence of another party with whom it has a relationship.
“The fact that Uber uses a digital interface rather than street hails does not change the fundamental nature of the service being offered,” the arbitration documents read. Stone further asserted that Proposition 22 does not immunize Uber from vicarious liability for the torts of its drivers.
Uber said in response that it respects the arbitration process but that the arbitrator “was wrong in holding Uber legally responsible for the tragic events of that night.” Spokesperson Gabriela Condarco-Quesada added: “No family should have to suffer the loss of a child, and our thoughts continue to be with the Normandin-Parker family.” She said Uber has “continued to strengthen our approach to safety over the years, through new technology, policies and safeguards informed by safety experts, including additional guidance to drivers about avoiding drop-offs in unsafe locations.”
The family said Uber at one point proposed a settlement that included a confidentiality agreement, under which they would have been charged a $10 million penalty any time they spoke about the accident and the company’s connection to it. The family said they rejected the settlement. Uber said it “ultimately did not pursue confidentiality in this case.”
The ruling is not binding beyond the case and applies only to the parties involved. But the decision is part of Uber’s broader fight to be treated as an online marketplace for rides rather than as an employer of the people who drive for its app—a fight over how the company is classified.