singleshot_

I defy you to read my post without understanding a single lick of it. It is remarkable how far away from the point you landed.

The entire point of my post -- nay, the entire point of the jury system in the United States -- is that until a jury is empaneled, the word "reasonable" may as well have no meaning whatsoever. No one is ever going to define that word short of a jury. You may think you know what is reasonable, they may think they have set forth reasonability in the law, but the only judge that's ever going to make an applicable decision on the word is a juror.

The Supreme Court may decide whether a reasonable jury could have come to a certain conclusion (about whether something was reasonable) but the Supreme Court is also not the place to look for this definition.

Good luck in your studies.

I have some astoundingly bad news for you about the entire system of trial by jury which is that virtually the entire thing depends on twelve average people defining the word "reasonable" in the context of your offense.

I defy you to go to law school with that attitude, sir

Relevant search terms: “air rights”, “penn central transportation co. V New York City”

A functioning society

> a large number of people are required to use those services for their job

Okay, but their job is a net drag on our society, so you haven’t quite convinced me.

Counterproposal: ban influencers

> If you want to force Uber to take responsibility for the driver, the simplest thing is to get rid of the driver.

No. The easiest thing to do would be arbitrate against uber. Deploying a fleet of self driving cars would be much, much more complicated.

Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't that the point the entire time?