In a recent ruling, a District Court found that a plaintiff’s claim of negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision against ridesharing company Uber failed as a matter of law, due to shortcomings in the plaintiff’s pleadings. According to the court, the plaintiff failed to provide specific factual allegations indicating that Uber had prior notice of the driver’s propensity for the described behavior.
The claim was detailed in the case of Karlen v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2023 WL 3570635 No. 3:21-cv-835 (VAB) (D. Conn May 19, 2023). In this case, the plaintiff alleged distressing encounters on an Uber trip, which was meant to be a standard trip from Philadelphia to Connecticut. The driver allegedly made sexually suggestive comments and threats, ordered the plaintiff to leave the vehicle on the New Jersey Turnpike, and intimated that he was in possession of a firearm.
The plaintiff brought multiple counts against Uber, including claims for negligent hiring. Central to these claims was a pivotal question: Did Uber have prior knowledge that would have warned them about the driver’s alleged conduct? These claims required plaintiffs to prove that Uber knew, or should have known, of the potential risk posed by the driver before the criminal act occurred.
This ruling asserts the importance of specificity when filing claims of negligent hiring and retention. If plaintiffs cannot demonstrate with concrete evidential backing that employers or service providers had actionable knowledge of an employee’s potential risk to others, their claims may not hold up in court.
Overall, the case provides insightful lessons for legal professionals in large corporations and law firms, highlighting the necessity to understand the full scope and limitations of claims for negligent hiring and retention.