Jessica M. Semins  |  September 6, 2020

Category: Legal News

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Lyft sexual assault lawsuit

A recent Lyft sexual assault lawsuit raises the question of the constitutionality of an Illinois law that exempts rideshare companies from the heightened duty of care standard applied to common carriers, such as taxicabs.

The constitutional query stems from an appeal brought in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, by a woman under the pseudonym, Jane Doe, who claims she was held at knifepoint, brutally assaulted, and raped by a Lyft driver. In her lawsuit, she argued to the circuit court that the rideshare company should be held vicariously liable for the driver’s criminal act.

The circuit court dismissed Jane’s vicarious liability claim on the finding that the Illinois Transportation Network Providers Act, Section 25(e) exempted Lyft and other transportation network companies (TNC)  from a heightened duty of care as they are not defined as “common carriers” under the statute. The court found that absent classification as a common carrier, Lyft couldn’t be held vicariously liable for the assault committed by one of its drivers, giving rise to an appeal on the issue.

What Is the Duty of Care for a Common Carrier?

Various forms of transportation have been recognized as “common carriers” in Illinois, including buses, taxicabs, planes, trains, and elevators. According to the state’s case law, the duty of care owed to passengers on common carriers is defined as one of “the highest duty” and meant to protect from instances of certain dangers such as assault, injury, and abuse from employees, other passengers, and third parties when passengers are in its control.

Lyft sexual assault lawsuitTNPA Section 25(e) Exempts Rideshare Vehicles from the Duty of Care Imposed on Taxis

The appeal in the Lyft sexual assault lawsuit hinges primarily on the language of TNPA Section 25(e) which Jane asserts is unconstitutional special legislation specifically prohibited under Section 13 of the Illinois Constitution.

The text of the law differentiates taxicabs from Lyft and other rideshare vehicles on its face, stating outright that “TNCs or TNC drivers are not common carriers,” exempting them from the heightened duty of care that is imposed on taxis.

Lyft argued that the company’s different model and regulatory scheme justifies the exemption.

The circuit court held that but for the specific language of the statute, Lyft would have been held to the heightened standard of care imposed on a common carrier — and vicariously liable for the driver’s criminal act.

Plaintiff Argues No Rational Basis in Law to Differentiate TNCs and Taxicabs in Lyft Sexual Assault Lawsuit

During appellate oral argument on Aug. 27, 2020, Jane’s attorney maintained that the Illinois ridesharing law is “not rationally supported by a legitimate state interest” since other companies — like taxi services — would be vicariously liable for the driver’s actions under the same set of facts. He made the argument that Jane would have had the “full force and protection of the highest duty of care” if only she took a taxicab instead of a Lyft.

In her appellate brief, Jane asserts that Lyft “advertises its transportation service as a safe alternative to other means of transportation, particularly taxicabs, and makes targeted efforts to attract young women as passengers.” She cites a number of media sources referencing other Lyft sexual assault lawsuits and what she refers to as Lyft’s “lax safety practices.”

Jane pleads that the Illinois law “disincentivizes rideshare companies from taking reasonable precautions to ensure that their drivers do not harm their passengers” and does not further the intent of the TNPA, but rather, effectively bars victims of rideshare driver attacks from any “meaningful recovery” in contradiction to the purported legislative intent of the statute to advance safety.

The Lyft Sexual Assault Lawsuit is Jane Doe v. Lyft Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1328, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

Join a Free Lyft, Uber Driver Sexual Assault Lawsuit Investigation

If you or a loved one was sexually assaulted by an Uber or Lyft driver in the last two years, you may qualify to join this rideshare driver sexual assault lawsuit investigation. 

See if you qualify by filling out the form on this page for a free case evaluation by experienced sexual assault attorneys. 

Get a Free Case Evaluation

This article is not legal advice. It is presented
for informational purposes only.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


Get Help – It’s Free

Join a Free Lyft, Uber Driver Sexual Assault Lawsuit Investigation

If you qualify, an attorney will contact you to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you.

PLEASE NOTE: If you want to participate in this investigation, it is imperative that you reply to the law firm if they call or email you. Failing to do so may result in you not getting signed up as a client or getting you dropped as a client.

E-mail any problems with this form to:
Questions@TopClassActions.com.

  • The law firm responsible for the content of this page is: Robin Raynish PLLC
  • Hidden
  • Example: This could be either before, during, or after you utilized the rideshare service.
  • We tell you about cash you can claim every week! Subscribe to our free newsletter today.
    By checking this box, I consent to receive from Top Class Actions marketing emails and/or marketing calls or text messages sent by an automatic telephone dialing system. I consent to Top Class Actions providing my phone number and email address to the lawyers or their agents sponsoring this investigation, and their co-counsel, if any, and I consent to receive marketing calls, text messages, and/or emails from those lawyers or their agents. I understand that this authorization overrides any previous registrations on a federal or state Do Not Call registry. You may opt out at any time. You can review Top Class Actions' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy here.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.