In a significant development for Uber, a California jury recently determined that the company was not responsible for a sexual assault reported by a woman during a 2016 ride. This verdict marks an initial victory for the ride-hailing giant, which is currently confronting thousands of similar lawsuits across the United States.
This particular case was the first to proceed to trial within a larger group of hundreds of consolidated lawsuits in California state courts. These cases, all brought by passengers who allege sexual assault or harassment by their Uber drivers, are grouped together for procedural efficiency, though each individual claim must still be heard separately.
The three-week trial focused on the experience of Jessica C., an 18-year-old college student at the time, who requested an Uber to San Jose airport on a Friday evening in December 2016. Her identity was protected during court proceedings.
Jessica testified that shortly after the ride began, the driver veered off the planned route, kissed her, assaulted her, groped her, and attempted to remove her pants. She recounted repeatedly saying ‘No’ and trying to push him away, fearing rape or murder. Following the incident, Jessica stated she withdrew from school and suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Following the verdict, Uber spokesperson Matt Kallman affirmed the company’s continuous efforts to enhance safety on its platform. “Uber has worked for years to raise the bar on safety, and we’ll continue to do so in the years ahead,” Kallman stated.
This jury’s decision could significantly influence the trajectory of other federal and state lawsuits against Uber, potentially impacting both sides’ willingness to pursue or settle claims.
A core legal question in these cases revolves around Uber’s liability for the actions of its drivers. In some jurisdictions, Uber is classified as a ‘common carrier,’ a legal designation historically applied to public transportation providers like airlines and railways. This classification entails a legal duty to safeguard passengers and inform them of known risks.
Jessica’s legal team accused Uber of negligence, arguing the company failed to adequately warn or protect her from sexual assault. They presented internal Uber data, revealed during discovery, indicating over 558,000 reports of sexual assault and misconduct on Uber trips in the U.S. between 2017 and 2024, a figure far exceeding previous public disclosures. The lawyers also contended that Uber neglected to implement protective systems, such as mandatory in-ride video recording for passenger safety.
Judge Ethan P. Schulman, overseeing the California state cases, instructed jurors that Uber would be liable if its negligence in safety measures was a “substantial factor” in causing harm. For Uber not to be liable, the jury needed to conclude that the company neither knew nor could have reasonably foreseen a driver exploiting the situation created by its service.
The jury unanimously concluded that while Uber was negligent in its general safety practices back in 2016, this negligence was not a substantial factor directly causing the attack.
Daniel Lau, the jury foreman, remarked after the verdict that evidence presented suggested Uber’s leadership prioritized business expansion over safety enhancements during its early years. “We felt that they could have done more back in the early days of Uber, rather than just focusing on growth,” Mr. Lau commented.
Uber countered these claims by stating it had implemented various safety measures, but acknowledged it could not guarantee the absolute prevention of misconduct. The company also argued it was not responsible for the driver’s intentional criminal actions. Gus Fuldner, Uber’s head of safety, testified during the trial that passengers use the service at their own risk.
Uber has consistently maintained that 99.9% of its U.S. trips occur without incident, labeling these lawsuits as “legally baseless attempts to hold Uber liable for the extremely rare and unforeseeable criminal acts” of independent drivers. The company asserts it should not be held responsible for “extraordinary and unforeseeable criminal acts by third parties.”
In Jessica’s specific case, Uber stated that the driver had passed a background check, and no serious complaints had been lodged against him prior to the incident.