Uber/Ride Sharing

Published on: December 10, 2025

Corporate Memory in Illinois: A Powerful Tool for Trial Lawyers to Hold Corporations Accountable

Corporate defendants often rely on a familiar playbook: rotate employees, claim ignorance, and hope the passage of time erases responsibility. But in Illinois, the law does not allow corporations to wipe the slate clean simply by losing or replacing the people who once knew the truth.

This is the concept of corporate memory, and it is one of the most effective legal tools available to trial lawyers. It allows us to expose what a corporation actually knew, when it knew it, and how that knowledge relates to the harm suffered by our clients. Corporate memory is not tied to an individual person. It belongs to the corporation itself.

The leading Illinois case on this principle, Campen v. Executive House, confirms that once a corporation learns of a dangerous condition, a prior bad act, or a foreseeable risk, that knowledge becomes part of the corporation. It cannot be “discharged” through turnover. It cannot be forgotten because a new manager arrived last year. And it cannot be erased by convenient claims of “I wasn’t here then.”

Continue reading →

Published on: November 25, 2025

The Essential Guide to Trial Work: Proven Strategies Every Trial Lawyer Should Know

By Goldberg & Goldberg

Understanding the Real Meaning of Trial Work

Trial work is more than standing before a jury and delivering sharp arguments—it’s the art and discipline of guiding a case from uncertainty to clarity. At its heart, trial work is a blend of preparation, persuasion, and performance. It’s the work that tests a lawyer’s instincts, judgment, composure, and command of the law.

Good trial work has always been about more than theatrics. The real craft lies in understanding how facts, people, and law interact once a case steps into a courtroom. A trial lawyer lives in that intersection, translating complexity into narratives that judges and juries can not only follow, but believe.

Continue reading →

Published on: February 12, 2020

UBER, RIDE SHARE & AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES

By Ian R. Alexander

It seems like the future of ride share is the development of autonomous vehicles and other forms of automated transportation. The safety ramifications related to this new technology cannot be overstated. Thankfully, the federal government has been working on a solution to foreseeable problems in this arena. We are reserving judgment on the effectiveness of the solutions being proposed in Washington. We are grateful that an effort is being made. The Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Frank Pallone (NJ Democrat), said yesterday , “We are working on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to draft a self-driving car bill that will help ensure that these life-saving technologies are safety deployed.”

To date, the federal government has offered guidance but no hard and fast rules (law) regulating self driving vehicles. From the prospective of the consumer, this is problematic. The major players in the self driving vehicle landscape, like Uber, Lyft, Google and other ride share companies, stand to benefit from lack of oversight. The less regulation, the more profit for these corporate behemoths. The problem with this approach is the lack of accountability to the consumer. Dollars and cents are not the only measure of success. Safety should be the number one concern of all of the implementers of this radical new technology. Autonomous vehicles are an opportunity to change the world for the better. Leaving the early regulation of this technology in the hands of Uber and Google is the same as letting the fox guard the hen house.

We have vast experience with ride share litigation. Our clients have benefited greatly from our experience in this specialized area of the law. We have pioneered techniques to overcome the ride share world’s argument that the drivers are independent contractors. If you have been injured in a ride share vehicle, call us for a consultation at no cost.

Published on: March 22, 2018

Who is Liable in a Self-Driving Uber Accident?

By Ian R. Alexander

The Atlantic published an article today in the wake of the accident that caused a pedestrian to be killed by a self-driving Uber vehicle in Tempe, Arizona. A link to that article can be found here. This is hardly the first incident involving a wrongful death at the hand of a self driving vehicle. In 2016 in Florida, a Tesla operating is auto-pilot mode struck another vehicle and killed the driver. The article asks the question, “What are the legal implications in accidents involving self driving car?” While the answer might seem obvious, there are quite a few factors that will impact the answer.

First, the article raises the point that this accident happened in Arizona which has declared itself open for business when it comes to testing and operating self driving automobiles. Arizona’s Governor signed an executive order in August of 2015 which required the Arizona Department of Transportation to take steps to support the testing and operation of self-driving vehicles on Arizona’s roads. An investigation into what Arizona did or did not do to make sure the roads were safe for self-driving cars and the general public needs to be investigated.

Obviously, UBER in this case, or whatever company owns the self-driving vehicle involved in the accident is the first place to investigate when it comes to determining who is at fault for an accident involving an autonomous vehicle. Other self driving-vehicle companies like Lyft, Waymo, Tesla, GM and Intel have set down roots in Arizona too. Since we know that 96+% of all automobile accidents are the result of driver error, this is the obvious place to start any investigation.

Continue reading →