A California jury has delivered a pivotal verdict, absolving Uber of responsibility for a sexual assault a woman reported experiencing during a 2016 ride. This decision marks an early, significant victory for the company, which is currently facing thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide.
This particular trial was the first in a series of consolidated California state court proceedings, bringing together hundreds of lawsuits filed by passengers alleging sexual assault or harassment by Uber drivers. Such consolidations streamline procedural aspects before a single judge, though each individual case retains its unique legal journey.
The three-week trial centered on the harrowing account of an 18-year-old college student, identified as Jessica C. to protect her privacy. She had requested an Uber ride to the San Jose, California airport just after 8 p.m. on a Friday in December 2016.
Jessica vividly recounted how, shortly after the ride commenced, the driver veered unexpectedly off route. She testified that he then kissed her, assaulted her, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing. She repeatedly cried “No,” trying to repel him, fearing for her life. The aftermath of the incident left her with severe post-traumatic stress disorder, forcing her to withdraw from her studies.
Following the verdict, John C. Taylor, the woman’s legal representative, expressed profound disappointment, calling it a “sad day for victims of sexual abuse across the country.”
In response, Uber spokesperson Matt Kallman issued a statement acknowledging that the company’s commitment “to improve safety on our platform is never done.”
He further affirmed, “Uber has dedicated years to enhancing safety standards, and this commitment will persist in the future.”
This jury’s decision could significantly influence the trajectory of other ongoing cases in both federal and state courts, potentially impacting settlement negotiations between all parties involved.
At the heart of these legal battles lies the critical question of Uber’s liability for the actions of its drivers. In certain states, Uber is categorized as a ‘common carrier,’ a designation typically reserved for public transport services like airlines or railroads. This classification imposes a heightened duty to protect passengers and disclose known risks.
Attorneys for Jessica C. argued that Uber was negligent, alleging a failure to adequately warn or protect her from sexual assault. They presented evidence, obtained during discovery, suggesting the company actively concealed the extent of its sexual assault issues. This included internal Uber data revealing over 558,000 reports of sexual assault and misconduct during U.S. trips between 2017 and 2024, a figure substantially higher than previously disclosed to the public.
The legal team also contended that Uber neglected to implement crucial safety systems for passengers, such as compulsory video recording inside vehicles during rides.
Judge Ethan P. Schulman, overseeing the California state court proceedings, instructed the jury that Uber would be held accountable for the plaintiff’s harm if the company’s negligence in safety measures was a ‘substantial factor’ in causing the assault. Conversely, if Uber could not have reasonably foreseen or expected such an incident, despite the environment it created, they would not be found liable.
Ultimately, the jury unanimously concluded that while Uber exhibited negligence in its general safety practices at the time of the 2016 incident, this negligence was not deemed a ‘substantial factor’ directly leading to the assault.
Daniel Lau, the jury foreman, commented post-verdict that the evidence suggested Uber’s leadership prioritized business expansion over the enhancement of passenger safety features during its formative years.
“We felt that they could have done more in Uber’s early days, prioritizing genuine safety improvements over relentless growth,” Mr. Lau stated.
Uber’s defense asserted that it had implemented various safety protocols but could not entirely eliminate the possibility of misconduct on its platform. The company explicitly denied responsibility for the driver’s intentional criminal act. Gus Fuldner, Uber’s head of safety, testified during the proceedings that passengers engage with the ride-hailing service at their own inherent risk.
For an extended period, Uber has contended that over 99.9% of its U.S. trips are completed without incident. The company characterized these lawsuits as ‘legally baseless attempts’ to hold it accountable for the ‘extremely rare and unforeseeable criminal acts’ of independent drivers, arguing it bears no responsibility for protecting against such ‘extraordinary and unforeseeable’ third-party crimes.
Uber also highlighted that the driver involved in Jessica C.’s case had successfully cleared a background check, and no significant complaints were registered against him prior to the reported incident.