Such an indemnity clause is nearly universal and as a general rule enforceable. Otherwise, what are they paying you $100 for? The person in the best position to know what the damages are is you. Uber doesn't want to pay you $100 just so you can come back later and take another bite at the apple.
Imagine if you walked out of a store having paid $10 for some merchandise, only to have the merchant come knocking at your door two weeks later saying that you need to pay another $10.
One of the principle purposes of all contracts, and the law generally, is to provide finality. In the case of a settlement, there's little if any finality for the defendant if you don't agree to indemnify.
If $100 isn't enough to cover your future risk, then propose amendments (e.g. larger payment, a more explicitly circumscribed indemnity, etc) and if necessary take them to small claims court where you can recover for the immediate harm while preserving your future options.
There are general limitations on such clauses, accumulated over hundreds of years of legal evolution which bends, ever so slightly, toward fair outcomes. There's also supplementing legislative protections, typically stylized "consumer protections" when involving the hoi polloi. I wouldn't venture to say whether the indemnity clause would protect Uber if the claimant came down with an STD; it might or it might not, depending on the state, the context, and possibly even the sentiments of a jury. (In the case that it would protect Uber, consider that it's unlikely Uber who smeared the feces, so it's hardly that unfair from a moral standpoint unless there was gross negligence involved, such as the driver knowing the feces was there or Uber knowing that a driver was regularly in such incidents.)
What makes arbitration clauses problematic, as opposed to indemnification, is that the Federal Arbitration Act has been reinterpreted (beginning ~75 years after the fact) by a conservative court to foreclose state-based protections regarding fair enforcement of such clauses, and there are few if any federal-based limitations.
Imagine if you walked out of a store having paid $10 for some merchandise, only to have the merchant come knocking at your door two weeks later saying that you need to pay another $10. One of the principle purposes of all contracts, and the law generally, is to provide finality. In the case of a settlement, there's little if any finality for the defendant if you don't agree to indemnify.
If $100 isn't enough to cover your future risk, then propose amendments (e.g. larger payment, a more explicitly circumscribed indemnity, etc) and if necessary take them to small claims court where you can recover for the immediate harm while preserving your future options.
There are general limitations on such clauses, accumulated over hundreds of years of legal evolution which bends, ever so slightly, toward fair outcomes. There's also supplementing legislative protections, typically stylized "consumer protections" when involving the hoi polloi. I wouldn't venture to say whether the indemnity clause would protect Uber if the claimant came down with an STD; it might or it might not, depending on the state, the context, and possibly even the sentiments of a jury. (In the case that it would protect Uber, consider that it's unlikely Uber who smeared the feces, so it's hardly that unfair from a moral standpoint unless there was gross negligence involved, such as the driver knowing the feces was there or Uber knowing that a driver was regularly in such incidents.)
What makes arbitration clauses problematic, as opposed to indemnification, is that the Federal Arbitration Act has been reinterpreted (beginning ~75 years after the fact) by a conservative court to foreclose state-based protections regarding fair enforcement of such clauses, and there are few if any federal-based limitations.