In a significant legal development, a US federal jury has ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages to a passenger who claimed she was sexually assaulted by her driver. This case marks the first plaintiff victory in a complex multidistrict litigation involving thousands of similar allegations against the ride-hailing giant. The pivotal decision was reached based on the theory of apparent authority, under which a company can be held liable for a contractor’s actions if the company’s conduct leads a customer to reasonably believe the contractor is acting on its behalf. The jury’s verdict found that the driver operated as an apparent agent of Uber, making the company accountable for his actions.
The lawsuit, representing over 3,000 individual federal cases, is part of the In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation. The multidistrict litigation structure allows each plaintiff to pursue an individual case while benefiting from shared discovery. The judge overseeing the consolidated cases is Senior US District Judge Charles Breyer in the Northern District of California.
In this instance, the plaintiff’s complaint accused Uber of several causes of action, including negligence, negligent hiring, and emotional distress. Her legal team requested $24 million in compensatory damages and $120 million in punitive damages, highlighting perceived lapses in Uber’s safety protocols. However, the jury only awarded $8.5 million, attributing responsibility to Uber for the driver’s actions through the apparent authority principle. Notably, the jury did not support the claims of design defects or grant any punitive damages, despite evidence related to Uber’s Safety Risk algorithm indicating elevated risk factors during the trip.
This verdict could significantly impact the remaining cases, influencing settlement negotiations and potentially altering Uber’s operational strategies. It comes amid other legal challenges for the company, including a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged discriminatory practices against clients with disabilities, and a New Zealand Supreme Court ruling that Uber drivers are employees entitled to labor protections.
Thursday’s outcome places further scrutiny on Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors, especially as litigation across jurisdictions examines the implications of this business model. More details on this case can be found on JURIST.