Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
2015 WL 5297508, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120456, 128 F. Supp. 3d 222 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's complaint can survive a motion to dismiss a vicarious liability claim against a ride-sharing company if it plausibly alleges the company exercises sufficient control over its drivers to establish an employer-employee or agency relationship, and that the driver's intentional tort arose from a job-related dispute.
Facts:
- Uber Technologies, Inc. operates a ride-sharing service through a cell phone application, marketing itself to consumers as 'your private driver.'
- Uber dictates fares, collects payment directly from passengers, and remits a percentage of the fare to its drivers on a weekly basis.
- Uber imposes numerous requirements on its drivers, including rules concerning vehicle condition, tipping, minimum ride-request acceptance rates, and the display of the Uber logo.
- Erik Search used the Uber app to request transportation for himself and three friends.
- Uber driver Yohannes Deresse accepted the request, but after the group entered his car, he began to act erratically.
- Feeling unsafe, Search and his friends exited the vehicle and began to walk away.
- Deresse followed them out of the car, initiated a verbal dispute, and then stabbed Search multiple times with a knife, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Erik Search filed suit against Uber Technologies, Inc. and its driver in D.C. Superior Court, a local trial court.
- Uber removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- Uber filed a Motion to Dismiss several counts in the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do a plaintiff's allegations that a ride-sharing company controls driver conduct, sets fares, handles payments, and markets itself as a transportation service state a plausible claim for vicarious liability for a driver's intentional tort under theories of respondeat superior or apparent agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Boasberg, J.
Yes. A plaintiff's allegations that a ride-sharing company controls its drivers' work are sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to state a plausible claim for vicarious liability. The court denied Uber's motion to dismiss the respondeat superior and apparent agency claims. For respondeat superior, the court found that Search's allegations regarding Uber's control over fares, payment, vehicle standards, and driver conduct were sufficient to plead an employer-employee relationship under D.C.'s five-factor test. The court also held that the alleged assault could be within the scope of employment because the complaint asserted it grew out of a 'job-related controversy'—the Uber ride itself. For apparent agency, the court determined that Search plausibly alleged Uber represented its drivers as agents through its marketing and safety promises, and refused to consider Uber's User Agreement because it was outside the pleadings. However, the court granted dismissal of the negligent hiring claim because the complaint failed to allege specific facts showing Uber’s background check was unreasonable or that a proper check would have revealed Deresse's unfitness. The court also dismissed the gross negligence and punitive damages counts as they are not stand-alone causes of action in D.C.
Analysis:
This decision is significant as an early judicial examination of the employment status of 'gig economy' workers. By allowing vicarious liability claims to proceed past the pleading stage based on allegations of control, the court prevented ride-sharing platforms from using the 'independent contractor' label and exculpatory contract terms to obtain early dismissals. This ruling signaled that the actual, day-to-day control a company exercises over its workers, rather than contractual formalities, is key to determining its potential liability for their torts. The case set a precedent for allowing discovery into the operational realities of platform-based companies, shaping the legal battleground for future litigation in this area.
