Who is Liable for Uber Drivers Assaulting Passengers?

Determining liability in rideshare assault cases requires analyzing both direct liability of the driver and potential liability of Uber as the platform operator.

The legal principles governing these cases draw from established tort law while adapting to modern business models that traditional legal frameworks struggle to capture.

Direct Liability of the Assaulting Driver

Drivers who commit assault against Uber passengers face immediate legal consequences under both criminal and civil law systems.

When a driver physically attacks or sexually assaults a passenger, they become directly liable for their intentional sexual misconduct regardless of their relationship with Uber.

Criminal prosecution represents the state’s response to assault, with penalties varying by jurisdiction and severity of the offense.

Drivers convicted of assault face these potential criminal penalties:

• Imprisonment ranging from months to decades depending on assault degree
• Mandatory registration as a sex offender for sexual assault convictions
• Probation with strict monitoring conditions
• Fines and restitution orders payable to victims
• Loss of professional driving privileges permanently

Beyond criminal consequences, assault victims can pursue civil lawsuits directly against the driver to recover monetary damages.

These civil claims operate independently of criminal proceedings and require only a preponderance of evidence rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

However, pursuing claims solely against individual drivers presents substantial practical limitations that often leave victims without adequate compensation.

Most rideshare drivers (including any female Uber driver involved in assault cases) lack sufficient personal assets or insurance coverage to satisfy substantial damage awards.

Standard auto insurance policies explicitly exclude coverage for intentional criminal acts, meaning drivers’ insurers will deny claims arising from assault.

Even when victims obtain judgments against drivers, collecting compensation becomes nearly impossible when defendants have limited financial resources.

The direct liability of assaulting drivers, while legally straightforward, rarely provides victims with meaningful recovery.

This gap in compensation drives the need to examine Uber’s potential liability for creating conditions that enabled these assaults to occur.

If you were assaulted by an Uber driver and need help learning your legal rights beyond pursuing the driver individually, you deserve experienced legal guidance.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to file an Uber sexual assault lawsuit today.

Vicarious Liability and Respondeat Superior Doctrine

The legal doctrine of respondeat superior traditionally holds employers liable for employees’ wrongful acts committed within the scope of their employment.

Under this principle, companies bear responsibility for harm their workers cause while performing job duties, even without direct fault by the employer.

However, applying vicarious liability to Uber assault cases encounters immediate obstacles due to the company’s business model and the nature of assault as an intentional tort.

Courts analyzing vicarious liability in rideshare assault cases must first determine whether drivers qualify as employees rather than independent contractors.

Even when employment relationships exist, assault typically falls outside the scope of employment since transporting rideshare passengers safely constitutes the authorized job duty, while assault represents:

• A substantial deviation from assigned responsibilities
• Personal criminal conduct unrelated to business purposes
• Intentional harmful acts contrary to company policies
• Behavior that provides no benefit to the employer
• Actions explicitly prohibited by terms of service

The Northern District of California’s MDL proceedings have seen extensive litigation over whether exceptions to these general rules might apply.

Some jurisdictions recognize that employers may still face vicarious liability when they create environments enabling foreseeable harm, particularly when exercising substantial control over working conditions.

Plaintiffs argue that Uber’s degree of control over drivers through algorithmic management, fare setting, and performance standards creates a relationship closer to employment than true independent contracting.

The company dictates routes through GPS navigation, monitors driver behavior through passenger ratings, and can deactivate drivers unilaterally.

This level of control, combined with Uber’s knowledge of assault risks from thousands of reported incidents, potentially expands vicarious liability beyond traditional boundaries.

Recent court decisions in San Francisco Superior Court have produced mixed results on vicarious liability claims.

While some judges dismiss these theories based on contractor classification and scope of employment limitations, others allow cases to proceed where evidence shows Uber’s operational control and foreseeability of harm.

The first bellwether trial currently underway in California state court will provide important guidance on how juries evaluate these arguments when presented with full evidence of Uber’s practices, particularly regarding how the company’s attempts to protect drivers may have compromised passenger safety.

Even when direct vicarious liability faces obstacles, alternative theories focusing on Uber’s independent negligence often provide stronger paths to accountability.

The Independent Contractor Classification Challenge

Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors rather than employees creates the primary legal barrier preventing traditional vicarious liability claims.

This classification represents a deliberate business strategy designed to limit legal responsibility while maximizing operational flexibility and minimizing costs.

The Department of Labor recognizes that misclassification of employees as independent contractors may deny workers protections, and this same classification shields companies from liability for contractor misconduct.

The legal test for determining contractor versus employee status varies by jurisdiction but generally examines factors demonstrating economic reality and degree of control.

The Department of Labor evaluates these six factors when applying the economic reality test:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss based on managerial skill
2. Investments by the worker and potential employer
3. Degree of permanence in the work relationship
4. Nature and degree of control exercised by the company
5. Extent to which work performed is integral to the business
6. Worker’s skill and initiative in performing services

California’s AB-5 legislation and subsequent Proposition 22 ballot measure provide one example of the ongoing battle over driver classification.

While AB-5 would have required classifying drivers as employees, Uber and other gig companies spent over $200 million promoting Proposition 22 to maintain contractor status with limited benefits.

Similar classification disputes continue in Massachusetts, New York, and other states where legislators and courts grapple with applying traditional employment law to modern gig economy relationships.

The independent contractor classification impacts assault victims in several ways.

Without an employment relationship, Uber avoids automatic vicarious liability for driver actions.

Victims cannot access workers’ compensation systems that might otherwise provide immediate medical coverage and wage replacement.

The classification also limits Uber’s duties regarding driver supervision, training, and ongoing monitoring that employers typically bear.

Despite these classification challenges, plaintiffs increasingly succeed in holding Uber accountable through negligence theories that don’t depend on employment relationships.

Courts recognize that companies maintaining platforms connecting drivers with passengers owe independent safety duties regardless of contractor classification.

Evidence from the ongoing MDL reveals Uber’s awareness that contractor classification served partially to avoid liability for predictable passenger safety risks.

The evolution of employment law continues as courts adapt legal frameworks to address modern business models that traditional classifications struggle to capture.

Victims pursuing claims directly against Uber for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention bypass the independent contractor obstacle by focusing on the company’s own failures in safety protocols.

These legal theories establish that Uber bears independent responsibility for implementing and maintaining reasonable safety measures to protect passengers from foreseeable harm and prevent serious attacks.

Elements of Negligent Hiring Claims

Establishing Uber’s liability for negligent hiring requires proving Uber failed to exercise reasonable care in screening drivers before granting them access to passengers.

According to the GAO’s 2024 report on ridesharing safety, 45 states and Washington, D.C., require criminal background checks for prospective ridesourcing drivers, though requirements vary substantially across states, with many jurisdictions lacking fingerprint-based FBI checks that traditional taxi services require.

This disparity in screening standards forms the foundation of negligent hiring claims against Uber.

To succeed on negligent hiring claims, plaintiffs must demonstrate that Uber knew or should have known through reasonable investigation that a driver posed a danger to passengers.

To establish a negligent hiring claim, plaintiffs must prove all of the following elements:

• Uber owed a duty of care to passengers to screen drivers adequately
• The company breached this duty through insufficient background checks
• A more thorough screening would have revealed disqualifying information
• The driver’s unfitness was a proximate cause of the passenger’s injuries
• The assault resulted in compensable damages to the victim

Evidence from ongoing litigation reveals systematic deficiencies in Uber’s screening processes that allow dangerous individuals to become drivers.

Unlike traditional taxi companies that typically require fingerprint-based FBI background checks, Uber relies on third-party services that search only commercial databases.

These services miss criminal records from jurisdictions not included in their databases, fail to detect aliases or identity fraud without biometric verification, and cannot access sealed court records (or expunged records) that fingerprint checks might reveal.

Court documents show instances where drivers with serious criminal histories passed Uber’s background checks.

In one case, a driver with multiple sexual assault convictions in another state received approval because the commercial database search didn’t include that jurisdiction.

Another driver used a false identity to circumvent the screening process entirely, highlighting the vulnerability of name-based checks without biometric verification.

The absence of in-person interviews represents another failure in Uber’s hiring process.

Traditional transportation companies conduct face-to-face meetings allowing assessment of demeanor, professionalism, and potential red flags that online applications cannot detect.

This lack of personal interaction eliminates opportunities to identify concerning behavior patterns or verify identity documents physically, weakening the screening process considerably.

Proving Negligent Supervision and Training

Uber’s minimal driver training and lack of ongoing supervision create conditions where misconduct goes undetected and uncorrected until serious harm occurs.

Negligent supervision claims focus on the company’s failure to monitor driver behavior, provide adequate training on professional boundaries, and implement systems for identifying concerning patterns before assaults happen.

The evidence shows Uber provides virtually no meaningful training to drivers beyond basic app navigation instructions.

Evidence reveals these substantial gaps in Uber’s training and supervision practices:

• No mandatory in-person training sessions on passenger safety
• Absence of instruction on maintaining professional boundaries
• Lack of guidance on handling vulnerable passengers appropriately
• No regular performance evaluations or supervision meetings
• Failure to implement mystery rider programs for quality control
• Minimal education about consent and appropriate passenger interaction

Traditional taxi and limousine services typically require extensive training programs covering customer service, professional conduct, and safety protocols to improve safety.

Drivers often complete multi-day orientations with examinations before transporting passengers.

The Department of Transportation establishes comprehensive safety standards for passenger transportation, which traditional carriers follow through rigorous training programs.

Uber’s approach of allowing drivers to begin working immediately after background check approval, with only online tutorial videos as preparation, falls far below industry standards for passenger transportation services.

The absence of ongoing supervision compounds these training deficiencies.

Once approved, Uber drivers operate without direct oversight, regular check-ins, or performance reviews common in traditional employment relationships.

The company relies solely on passenger ratings and complaints to identify problems, a reactive approach that fails to prevent harm.

This hands-off supervision model means warning signs of inappropriate behavior often go unnoticed until after serious incidents occur.

Technology exists to enhance driver supervision and make the platform safer, including in-vehicle cameras, regular audits of trip data for unusual patterns, and periodic re-screening of driver records.

Uber’s resistance to implementing these measures, despite their availability and use by competitors in some markets, demonstrates conscious choices prioritizing driver recruitment over passenger safety.

Internal records revealed through litigation show company discussions, including input from Uber’s head of safety, about supervision tools rejected due to concerns about driver retention and operational costs.

Expert witnesses in transportation safety testify that reasonable supervision standards require proactive monitoring systems, not just reactive complaint response.

The combination of minimal training and absent supervision creates an environment where drivers inclined toward misconduct face few deterrents or detection mechanisms until after harming passengers.

Negligent Retention and Failure to Act on Complaints

Perhaps the most damaging evidence against Uber involves cases where the company retained drivers despite receiving complaints about inappropriate behavior that later escalated to assault, particularly when the company refused to remove problematic individuals from the platform.

Negligent retention claims demonstrate Uber’s failure to remove dangerous drivers even after receiving clear warning signs, making subsequent assaults foreseeable and preventable, representing egregious conduct by the company.

Court filings reveal a troubling pattern where Uber allowed drivers to continue operating after multiple complaints about harassment, inappropriate comments, unwanted touching including non consensual kissing and contact with a non sexual body part, and other concerning behaviors.

Court documents demonstrate Uber’s pattern of negligent retention through:

• Drivers remaining active after sexual harassment complaints
• Failure to investigate passenger safety concerns thoroughly
• Requiring multiple serious complaints before taking action
• Allowing drivers to create new accounts after deactivation
• Not sharing complaint data between different Uber services
• Inadequate systems for tracking complaint patterns across time

Internal data from Uber’s safety reports shows Uber received thousands of reports annually involving driver misconduct.

Yet evidence suggests only a fraction result in driver deactivation, with many serious complaints resulting in warnings or temporary suspensions rather than permanent removal.

This lenient approach to driver discipline prioritizes maintaining driver supply over passenger safety.

One particularly disturbing pattern involves drivers engaging in sexually assaulting behaviors after previous passengers reported uncomfortable experiences or boundary violations, including non consensual sexual contact.

These escalation cases (including instances where uber drivers sexually assaulted passengers after prior warnings) demonstrate how Uber’s inadequate response to initial complaints enables progressively serious misconduct.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys argue these assaults were entirely preventable had Uber acted decisively on early warning signs.

The company’s complaint handling systems also show concerning gaps including high risk matches between drivers and passengers who had previously reported issues.

Different categories of Uber services (UberX, Uber Eats, etc.) historically didn’t share complaint data, allowing problematic drivers to continue in one service after issues in another.

The lack of centralized tracking meant patterns of concerning behavior across multiple complaints might go unrecognized.

Additionally, Uber’s reliance on automated systems and offshore customer service centers often resulted in serious complaints being miscategorized or inadequately investigated.

If an Uber driver assaulted you after previous passengers reported concerning behavior, you may have a strong negligence claim against the company.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page for a free case evaluation to learn about joining the Uber assault litigation and seeking the compensation you deserve.

Our Uber sexual assault attorney at TruLaw is dedicated to supporting survivors through the deeply personal process of filing an Uber sexual assault lawsuit or pursuing a class action lawsuit when appropriate.

With extensive experience in personal injury and sexual assault litigation cases, Jessica Paluch-Hoerman and our partner law firms work with trauma experts and safety advocates to prove how Uber’s negligent safety practices and inadequate driver screening led to your harm.

Meet the Lead Uber Sexual Assault Attorney at TruLaw

TruLaw focuses on securing compensation for medical expenses, therapy costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and other damages resulting from sexual assault including sexual penetration or harassment during Uber rides.

We understand the profound physical and emotional trauma that sexual assault survivors experience and provide the compassionate, confidential guidance you need when seeking justice.

Meet our lead Uber sexual assault attorney:

Jessica Paluch-Hoerman: As founder and managing attorney of TruLaw, Jessica brings her extensive experience in personal injury litigation and victim advocacy to her client-centered approach by prioritizing confidentiality, compassion, and personalized attention with survivors.

Through TruLaw and partner law firms, Jessica has helped collect over $3 billion on behalf of injured individuals across all 50 states through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

How much does hiring an Uber sexual assault lawyer from TruLaw cost?

At TruLaw, we believe financial concerns should never stand in the way of justice.

That’s why we operate on a contingency fee basis—with this approach, you only pay legal fees after you’ve been awarded compensation for your injuries.

If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or other forms of sexual violence during an Uber ride, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation and determine whether you qualify to join others in filing an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit today.

Uber sexual assault lawsuits are being filed by survivors across the country who experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, or other forms of sexual violence during Uber rides.

TruLaw is currently accepting clients for the Uber sexual assault lawsuit.

A few reasons to choose TruLaw for your Uber sexual assault lawsuit include:

• If We Don’t Win, You Don’t Pay: The Uber sexual assault lawyers at TruLaw and our partner firms operate on a contingency fee basis, meaning we only get paid if you win.
• Expertise: We have decades of experience handling personal injury and sexual assault cases similar to the Uber lawsuit.
• Successful Track Record: TruLaw and our partner law firms have helped our clients recover billions of dollars in compensation through verdicts and negotiated settlements.

If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault, sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or other forms of sexual violence during an Uber ride, you may be eligible to seek compensation.

Contact TruLaw using the chat on this page to receive an instant case evaluation that can determine if you qualify to join others in filing an Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit today.