Ex Taco Bell Exec Sues Uber Driver Over Surveillance Video

First of all, thank you for such a detailed analysis, I learned a little bit, and it gave me a different perspective on the questions I asked.

"Sure it is. Legally it's known as provocation:"

Ahh, but Provocation is a legal defense for a criminal case, not a listed causal factor for a Civil case, at least not according to the link you provided. There's some other issues with this tact as well. For starters, Provocation generally requires establishment, meaning it has to be reasonably proven that the provocation occurred. If the audio is inadmissible here, then Golden has no way to establish that he was provoked beyond his testimony, which of course would be refuted by Caban's testimony. Also, since Golden has since gone on to do interviews where he never once mentioned that Caban provoked him, either audibly or by recording him on video, I don't expect a Jury would buy that story. The only way Golden would have to establish it would be witness testimony (there is none) or listening to the audio (which of course then makes the audio admissible, and then of course it would be clear that Caban never threatened Golden as you suggested.)

Also, to extend your argument, Provocation would be a 2-way street. You say that Golden may have violated the law because provoked by Caban, which I contend is very hard to establish. However, far easier to establish is that Caban felt threatened by Golden's words and attitude (and extreme intoxication) to the point where he felt it was necessary to violate the law to protect himself.

But again, that's really only a criminal defense, not a civil defense.

"Because before the truly damaging video of him striking the uber driver we have the, less shocking but equally fireable offense of public intoxication, in which the audio plays a key part in establishing that he is drunk as opposed to tired or sick."

Even without the audio, we have the scene where he falls over as Caban makes a U-Turn. I think that fairly well established that Golden was not only intoxicated, but VERY intoxicated. We also have a police report with Golden's BAC as public record now, further solidifying that he was drunk. I suppose it could be argued that if Caban hadn't recorded Golden, he wouldn't have gotten angry and struck Caban, and the police never would have been called, Golden never would have been arrested, and his BAC never established. But that sounds more like a story for "The Good Wife" than it does an actual legal case. With a little digging, I'm sure Caban could get witnesses at the bar that night who observed Golden being excessively intoxicated, or subpoenas of Golden's credit card bill for the night establishing how much he spent at the bar (if he didn't pay cash). Point is, his intoxication is establishable far above and beyond the audio.

I do wish however that Taco Bell would not have issued a statement. Being that California is an At Will state, they should have just terminated Golden and made no statement and not listed a cause. Then Golden could have still sued for damages based on corollary, but no direct cause and effect. It was ill-advised of Taco Bell to fire him with the statement they provided.

"My simplest argument is that I have been a dozen taxis in the last five years, I have never noticed a camera. If I was be recorded I didn't know. If I didn't see a camera, it wouldn't even enter my mind. I'm a reasonable (I hope) person.

Camera appeared to be a rear-view mirror type, and as you say he didn't seem to notice it. I'm not sure every reasonable person would."

So first of all, I've probably been in the same number of taxis in the last year and I have in fact noticed cameras recording me. There were probably signs telling me I was being recorded (I don't recall in every instance). I also know there are dash cams with forward and rear facing cameras, though that's probably due to the industry we're in more than it would be something a reasonable person might realize. But that didn't really answer my question about reasonable expectation of privacy. All you stated was that you never recall being surveilled in a cab, that doesn't answer the question if riding in a cab (or uber) is considered a "public space."

I really don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps there's legal precedent establishing it.

As a side note, it would be wise for Uber to update its Code of Conduct to establish that Riders should be aware that they may be recorded (video and audio) at the driver's discretion, and that they consent to this by using the Uber service.