June 6, 2022

Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc (June 1, 2022, B310131) 

Plaintiffs Jane Does sued Uber for negligence and strict liability after being picked up and sexually assaulted by persons pretending to be drivers matched to them through Uber’s ridesharing app. The trial court sustained Uber’s demurrer and dismissed the action, finding that plaintiffs failed to allege facts supporting either a special relationship between Uber and the plaintiffs or misfeasance creating a duty to protect the plaintiffs from third parties. Plaintiffs appealed. 

The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court first addressed the issue of a special relationship. The court held Uber is not a common carrier to which a heightened standard of care applies. The court explained that despite Uber’s knowledge of customers’ locations and its ability to direct them to a pickup location, Uber had no control over plaintiffs’ movement and environment while they were waiting for their Uber drivers and therefore did not have the control common carriers have over their passengers. The court also concluded that Uber’s advertising safe pick-ups through its app was too indefinite to create a contractual duty to protect plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal further held plaintiffs did not allege misfeasance that would support Uber’s liability for failure to protect plaintiffs. Although the third party assaults were foreseeable because Uber’s business model created a risk that criminals would target passengers, the assaults were not a “necessary component,” or necessary result, of Uber’s business model or other conduct. Thus, Uber had no duty to protect plaintiffs from third parties.