Così la Corte di appello californiana, 2 app. dist.-division one, 01 giungo 2022, B310131 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV11874).
Questione molto interessante, anche a livello teorico. Il punto è se U. doveva una protezione speciale alle attrici (vittime di adescamenti e aggressione da parte di falsi guidatori U.) ad es. fornendo accurate informazioni sull’esistenza di tali rischi nonchè predisponendo soluzioni (informatiche o altro) per evitarli.
La domanda giudiziale: << Through the SAC, the Jane Does seek to hold Uber liable for failing to warn them about or implement other measures to protect them against rapists employing the fake Uber scheme in the portions of West Hollywood and Los Angeles where the Uber entities knew rapists had repeatedly implemented the scheme. The SAC alleges the Uber entities “have not taken . . . any affirmative precautions to warn Uber users in” these or any other areas “of the continuous fake Uber sexual assault scheme” (capitalization omitted), and have not implemented additional safety features to help Uber app users assure they are entering the car of their authorized Uber driver>>, p. 8.
La regola nel diritto usa: <<The general rule that one has no duty, absent a special relationship, to protect others against harm at the hands of third parties is rooted in the idea that, “[g]enerally, the ‘person who has not created a peril is not liable in tort merely for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another’ from that peril.” (Brown, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 214, italics added, quoting Williams v. State of California (1983) 34 Cal.3d 18, 23.) A necessary corollary to this is that when a defendant has affirmatively “created a peril” that foreseeably leads to the plaintiff’s harm (Williams, supra, at p. 23), the defendant can, even absent a special elationship, be held liable for failing to also protect the plaintiff from that peril. This scenario does not represent a true exception to the general rule that there is no duty to protect. Rather, it involves more than a mere failure to protect (nonfeasance), and instead involves both misfeasance— the defendant has “ma[de] the plaintiff’s position worse, i.e., defendant has created a risk”—and the nonfeasance of failing to protect against that risk once created. (Weirum v. RKP General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 49 (Weirum).)>>, p. 17
Di conseguenza : <<The fake Uber scheme may be a foreseeable result of the Uber business model, and the Jane Does’ assailants may not have been able to as easily commit their crimes against the Jane Does, were it not for the Uber app and the Uber business model. But these connections cannot establish that the harm the
Jane Does suffered is a “necessary component” of the Uber entities’ actions. (Sakiyama, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) “The violence that harmed [the Jane Does]”—abduction and rape—“[is] not ‘a necessary component’ of” the Uber business model. (See Melton, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 535.) Nor does such harm become a necessary component of the Uber business model because the Uber entities marketed the Uber app as safe to use, refused to cooperate with sexual assault investigations, or concealed sexual assaults related to the use of the app. Even accepting such allegations as true, the Uber entities still are not alleged to have “[taken] . . . action to stimulate the criminal conduct” (ibid.), as was the case in Weirum, where defendants encouraged plaintiffs to drive as quickly as possible to the designated location. (See Weirum, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 48.) To the contrary, like the defendants in Sakiyama, the Uber entities made efforts to prevent the type of conduct that harmed the plaintiffs—namely, they included matching system features in the Uber app that, if utilized, can thwart efforts like the fake Uber scheme. The conduct based on which the Jane Does seek to impose liability thus does not constitute misfeasance that can give rise to a duty to protect>>, P. 22 .
E se fosse stata portata in corte da noi? Può dirsi che che U. abbia il dovere ex art. 2043 (certo non contrattuale) di avvisare l’utenza che ci son falsi autisti e di implementare meccanismi di autenticazione o altro, per non incapparvi? Una risposta positiva pare tutt’altro che impossibile. Non parrebbe però utile la disciplina della responsabilità precontrattuale , dato che non c’è stato alcun contatto tra le vittime e U.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)