California Court affirms dismissal, finding Uber had no duty to prevent fake Uber scheme leading to sexual assault.

Multiple women sued Uber and affiliated entities claiming they were sexually assaulted by assailants who lured them into their vehicles by posing as drivers authorized by Uber. The plaintiffs alleged Uber’s business model created a risk that criminals would employ the scheme yet failed to protect against it. However, the court found that there was no special relationship with the Jane Does that would give rise to a duty to protect them from third-party assaults or to warn them about the scheme. The court also found that Uber did not create the risk of harm even though the scheme might have been foreseeable. Accordingly, the court held Uber could not be held liable for the alleged damages and affirmed dismissal of the claims. It disagreed with a prior federal decision that allowed a negligence claim to stand where the alleged sexual assault involved a driver that had formerly been authorized to use the Uber App. See Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2020 WL 2097599 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2020). These cases illustrate the developing boundaries of liability for sexual assaults in the rideshare industry.

^{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}