Uber Escapes Liability for Sexual Assaults by Impostor Drivers

Uber Technologies Inc. lacked any duty to protect rideshare users from criminals posing as its drivers, and thus will avoid liability to three women who allege they were lured by the company’s decals and sexually assaulted, a California appeals court said.

The rape scheme may have been foreseeable to Uber, but the crimes weren’t a “necessary component” of the company’s app or actions, Justice Frances Rothschild said Wednesday for the California Court of Appeal, Second District. The alleged actions of Uber and two related companies didn’t “create the risk that criminals would take advantage of the existence of the Uber app,” she said.

Nor did Uber have a common-carrier relationship with the women at the time they were waiting for their rides that would create a duty to protect their safety, Rothschild said. And their contractual relationship doesn’t create such a duty either, she said.

The women, identified as Jane Doe Nos. 1, 2, and 3, allege Uber allows its decals to be printed at home by anyone with a computer and printer, according to the court. Uber allegedly advertises its services as a safe alternative to drinking and driving, and touts its location-finding GPS function as allowing users to “stay safe and comfortable wherever you are until your driver arrives.”

Uber allegedly knew of impostors driving to popular nightclub and bar areas in Los Angeles to abduct and sexually assault rideshare users.

Each of the plaintiffs alleges that a car with a different license plate from the one they were assigned, but bearing an Uber decal, drove up before the authorized car. Two plaintiffs didn’t try to match the license plate, while one did but accepted an explanation from the driver, they say. All were allegedly raped.

The appeals court affirmed the dismissal of their suit. “On the facts alleged, the Uber entities were not in a special relationship with the Jane Does that would give rise to a duty to protect the Jane Does against third party assaults, or to warn them about the same,” Rothschild said. And the women didn’t adequately allege improper conduct by Uber, she said.

Justices Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Helen I. Bendix joined the opinion.

Rizio Lipinsky, along with F. Edie Mermelstein, who practices in Santa Monica and Huntington Beach, Calif., represented the plaintiffs. Perkins Coie LLP represented Uber.

The case is Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2022 BL 188437, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., No. B310131, 6/1/22.