amNewYork42%

Brooklyn jury to decide whether Uber drivers are contractors or employees in car crash suit 5%

By Max Parrott34%

7/22/2026, 9:45:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Red Herring, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 5.5% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 279 faulty-reasoning hits from 678 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.1% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,185 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.30% of the article peer group.

A Brooklyn judge ruled on July 13 that a jury will decide the question of whether Uber drivers are employees or independent contractors in a first-of-its-kind case over whether the rideshare app can be held liable for car accidents. 
The case comes out of a dispute over a car crash that happened in 2019 between a Brooklyn resident and an Uber driver who was on duty at the time of the accident. 
Vanessa Rawlins was riding as a passenger when Uber driver Soe Myint allegedly struck her car. 
Rawlins sued both Myint and Uber, alleging that the company was also liable for the crash. 
Uber denied Myint had any employment relationship with the company. 
In 2022, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Francois Rivera found Myint to be liable for the accident, but decided that the question of whether Uber was also liable needed to proceed to trial. 
When that trial began this past June, Uber asked Brooklyn Supreme court Justice Aaron Maslow for a directed verdict, arguing that Myint could not be characterized as an employee because he exercised complete discretion over “who, what, when, where, why and how” he operated his vehicle, and filled out a 1099 instead of a W2 among other tests they claimed showed him to be a contractor not an employee. 
Maslow ultimately decided on July 13 that the decision over whether Myint is an employee should be decided by jury. 
“The Court concluded that reasonable jurors could differ as to whether Uber exercised sufficient control over the manner and means by which Myint performed his work,” wrote Maslow in his decision denying a motion for a directed verdict. 
Across the country, the question over whether Uber drivers should be classified as employees has sparked legal challenges, leading to some conflicting responses. 
In California, for instance, Uber officially became classified as independent contractors after the state implemented a three-factor ABC test to define employment. 
Rawlins’ lawsuit is not the first case in New York state to consider whether the rideshare drivers are employees, but it is the first tort case to do so. 
In a 2020 New York case, the Appellate Division, Third Department Court ruled that Uber was liable to contribute to unemployment insurance for its drivers as it would to employees. 
But New York School of Law professor Andrea Johnson said that when it comes to Rawlins’ case, the standards for a car crash are different than in the realm of worker benefits. 
“This case asks the question for one specific purpose: whether Uber can be held financially responsible when a driver injures someone. 
We’re in a different context, and the context matters. 
I think the logic from that [Third Department] case  which was an unemployment insurance decision involving Uber itself  is somewhat persuasive, but I wouldn’t say it’s predictive.” 
Uber’s attorneys have argued as much. 
In court papers, they argued that Rawlins’ case should not rely on the New York Attorney General’s massive settlement with Uber over the unemployment insurance in considering drivers’ employment status. 
One big difference between labor standards and tort claims is that lawsuits torts involving individual incidents cannot be dealt with as a class. 
“What we have here is a car accident. 
These cases can't be settled as a class. 
They come up one by one,” Johnson said. 
This means that Uber can't resolve all of the tort cases as a class it has done in other instances of this debate, so the risk of potential litigation costs for each individual case could add up. 
For Rawlins, a decision finding Myint to be an Uber employee could, in practice, increase the amount that a jury would allow in damages. 
“Especially with juries, the dollar figure may change based on who the defendant is. 
From a practical standpoint,’ said Johnson. 
“Uber is a deep pocket. 
In these serious injury cases, a plaintiff with significant injuries may not be able to collect from an individual driver the way they could from Uber.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.8%amNewYork: 3.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Max Parrott: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.5%This article: 5.5%Max Parrott: 3.5%amNewYork: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.5%This article: 4.3%Max Parrott: 1.3%amNewYork: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Max Parrott: 4.9%amNewYork: 5.4%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 3.8%Max Parrott: 2.3%amNewYork: 1.1%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.5%amNewYork: 3.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Max Parrott: 1.0%amNewYork: 1.2%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 0.7%Max Parrott: 2.9%amNewYork: 7.2%Negativity Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.8%amNewYork: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.8%amNewYork: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Max Parrott: 0.8%amNewYork: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 3.4%Max Parrott: 1.7%amNewYork: 1.3%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 4.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.2%Max Parrott: 5.1%amNewYork: 4.1%Hasty Generalization1.2%This article: 4.4%Max Parrott: 0.8%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring4.4%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 5.5%amNewYork: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 1.8%amNewYork: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Max Parrott: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 1.5%amNewYork: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 3.2%amNewYork: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Max Parrott: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

678 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech426writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageUber • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageUber • 69 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Maslow • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageUber • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAndrea Johnson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrea Johnson

49%flagged-word coverage
105 attributed words42% of attributed speech46% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.