District Court ruled plaintiff’s claim of negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision against Uber failed as matter of law due to failure to plead with specificity facts alleging Uber’s notice of driver’s propensity to engage in alleged conduct.

The plaintiff alleged that on an Uber trip, intended to take the plaintiff from Philadelphia to Connecticut, the driver engaged in heinous conduct, including sexually suggestive comments, threats, ordering the plaintiff out of the vehicle on the New Jersey Turnpike, and telling the plaintiff that he had a gun. The plaintiff brought multiple counts against Uber, including claims for negligent hiring, retention, training and supervision—a commonly encountered claim that transportation companies deal with in matters involving alleged criminal or egregious conduct by its employees. 

To Uber’s benefit in this litigation is a stricter federal pleading standard, which the district court stated requires “some factual basis to support the inference that [the driver] had the propensity to engage in the type of conduct that is the basis of the Amended Complaint.” The court further denied the plaintiff leave to amend, noting that she had amended once and, despite some limited discovery, was unable to plead with further specificity.
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 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 © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}