Judge rules Uber owes ‘non-delegable duty’ to passengers in sexual assault MDL

Uber sexual assault lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff identified as WHB 823 filed a lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc.
• Why: The plaintiff claims Uber is liable for a driver’s alleged sexual assault under a legal duty to safely transport passengers.
• Where: The lawsuit is part of multidistrict litigation in California federal court.
• How to get help: If you or a loved one experienced sexual assault involving an Uber or a Lyft driver, you may be eligible to take legal action.

A federal judge ruled that Uber can be held liable for an alleged sexual assault by one of its drivers, finding the company has a legal duty to ensure passenger safety.

The lawsuit was brought by a passenger identified as WHB 823, who alleges she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a ride arranged through the company’s platform in March 2019.

According to the complaint, the driver allegedly engaged in inappropriate physical contact and made sexualized remarks when the plaintiff attempted to exit the vehicle. The plaintiff claims she was sexually assaulted, harassed or otherwise attacked during the ride.

The court ruled that Uber qualifies as a “common carrier” because it provides transportation services to the public and owes passengers a heightened duty of care.

“Uber clearly qualifies as a common carrier … [and] owes a non-delegable duty to safely transport passengers,” the court’s order states.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer determined that this duty cannot be avoided by classifying drivers as independent contractors, meaning Uber can still be held responsible for harm caused by drivers.

Uber cannot avoid liability through independent contractor defense

Uber argued it merely connects riders with independent drivers and should not be treated as a transportation provider. The company claimed it acts as a technology platform rather than a carrier of passengers.

The court rejected that argument, finding Uber holds itself out as a transportation service through advertising and exercises control over fares, ride matching, payments and safety measures.

The ruling states that Uber’s duty to ensure passenger safety is “non-delegable,” which means the company remains responsible even if a driver is not classified as an employee.

The plaintiff asserts claims, including negligence, fraud, misrepresentation and emotional distress, arguing Uber failed to provide safe transportation and misrepresented the safety of its services.

The case is part of a larger multidistrict litigation involving thousands of similar claims alleging passengers were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers.

Earlier this year, Uber was also sued over allegations it misled consumers about arrival times for its rideshare services.

What do you think about the claims that Uber should be held liable for driver conduct? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Sarah R. London of Girard Sharp LLP, Rachel B. Abrams of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP and Roopal P. Luhana of Chaffin Luhana LLP.

The Uber sexual assault lawsuit is WHB 823 v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00737, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, and is part of In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, Case No. 3:23-md-03084, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• John Deere class action settlement includes $99M, right to repair changes
• Abercrombie & Fitch hit with class action over hidden fees added at checkout
• Vivint class action alleges unlawful spam emails and tracking of website visitors
• Kate Spade Outlet class action claims discounts based on inflated reference prices