Guy Who Violently Attacked Uber Driver Is Suing For $5 Million

File this under “only in America.”

In November I posted about the Uber driver in Newport Beach who was violently attacked by a passenger, and then ended up pepper spraying him. The guy was clearly drunk and belligerent, and the real confrontation started when the Uber driver pulled over to let the guy out, at which point he was attacked. The Uber driver pepper sprayed the passenger, and following the incident said he was looking for a new job, because he didn’t feel comfortable working for Uber anymore.

For those who never saw the video, here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSIzKhUtZgg

Well, there’s a follow up to this story, and it involves a lawsuit. A $5 million lawsuit filed by the passenger against the Uber driver he violently attacked. That’s right, the passenger is suing the Uber driver.

Via CNBC:

A former Taco Bell executive who was arrested and fired after a viral dash-cam video showed him attacking an Uber driver is now suing that driver for $5 million — saying the driver illegally recorded the violent incident.

Ousted exec Benjamin Golden, 32, also said in court papers that driver Edward Caban, is to blame for any injuries he suffered during their Oct. 30 encounter in Costa Mesa, Calif.

Golden’s civil cross-complaint cites the California penal code, which says a person cannot intentionally record a conversation with someone else “without the consent of all parties.”

Pilchman said that Caban, 23, seems to be “quite the opportunist,” and that “there’s very little truth to the damages that he claims,” which include post-traumatic stress and claims that he lives in fear after his violent confrontation with Golden.

“I don’t believe he has any of those,” she said.

Okay, so the passenger says that the driver is quite an opportunist with his claims of post-traumatic stress and living in fear. But the violent former Taco Bell executive is suing for the same thing — the suffering, severe emotional distress, anxiety, fear, etc.:

Golden furthers said in filings that because of the “overwhelming media coverage” of the video, Golden “has suffered severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, fear, pain and suffering and the loss of his job.”

Bottom line

Only in the USA!

(Tip of the hat to Mike)

Conversations (32)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Jennifer Estrada Guest

I don't know what it's like with Uber, but I know that Lyft already has the passengers route mapped out on the apps gps... it's done before hand when they pay by credit card - so you know exactly where you are taking the passenger - why wouldn't Uber have this ? I don't understand... this whole incident could have been avoided..

0
‼ 0
Jeff Guest

The driver's automobile is his own private property. Uber does not provide vehicles to their drivers. It is not illegal to film or record inside of your own private property, therefor the driver had every right to set up a camera inside of his automobile and record any interaction happening without the consent of any party. This is federal law protected under the US Constitution 1st amendment, so California penal code is irrelevant. Hopefully the driver applies that in court.

0
‼ 0
Martina Guest

@Marriott Marty Video recording is NOT illegal, it's the actual audio recording that falls under the 2 party consent laws. That being said, the camera originally recorded the traffic view. Therefore, IMO then the related audio recording is just ambient noise..and is not subject to 2 party consent, as there was no intention to entrap, extort this or any other passenger. It just so happens, it captures the passenger being a drunken, moronic, violent dick. The fact that he can't take his comeuppance makes him even more of dick; and worthy of all the INTERNET fury that is going to come his way.

0
‼ 0
Jose Guest

ok. The driver is wrong recording without consent, he is guilty with $1 fine. The passenger is guilty with his ass%$%^ behavior plus beating the driver up, harmful to others, he is guilty with $10000 fine to the driver.

0
‼ 0
Eric Guest

@ Mike: You can record images but not voices. That's why most security camera footage you see is silent.

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published