Uber shooting on I-25

[FoxtArt]

They are hoping for a settlement. If the description is correct, I'm betting it's a 12(b) dismissal instead and they have an automatic judgment against them for attorney fees.

I don't think there's really a tort for "the company wasn't frisking their individual contractors before they got in their individually owned cars to see if they had guns in violation of the clearly defined uber policy to not have guns"

Remember, people can institute any suit they want, even frivolous and invalid ones. It's your responsibility to ask the court to dismiss it and cite appropriate precedence and rules to do so.

ETA: For instance, they are probably going to do a claim for negligence, which has clear burdens. Their problem is they can't plead a valid "duty of care" which is a component of the claim; e.g. they can't credibly plead that Uber had any legal responsibility to proactively enforce such terms in their contract. (e.g. frisk drivers before every job)

[Gman]

Why does 10 rounds sound extreme? I think we've all seen videos of drugged up bad guys taking a full magazine because they didn't know they were dead. Do you stop firing even when the danger persists and you still have ammunition just because the total shots fired "sounds extreme"?

Hancock also testified that he was trying to shoot low since he only wanted to stop the attack and didn't want to kill his attacker.