Kamal v. SINGH

Background

Karim Kamal, representing himself, sued Raghbir Singh, Uber Technologies, Inc., and American Transit Insurance Company for property damage and personal injuries allegedly caused by a November 25, 2022 motor-vehicle accident. The opinion states that Singh had stopped to buy pizza while his vehicle was left in drive. Kamal alleged that the unmanned vehicle struck his parked car and continued into traffic. American Transit was Singh’s insurance carrier.

Uber moved for summary judgment, which is a decision before trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally important issue. Uber argued that Singh was not its employee and that Uber did not own or operate the vehicle.

Vicarious liability

Under New York’s respondeat-superior rule, an employer may be responsible for an employee’s wrongful conduct committed within the scope of employment. That rule generally does not apply to an independent contractor. Whether a worker is an employee depends mainly on the alleged employer’s control over the way the work is performed.

The court held that Uber made an initial showing that Singh was an independent contractor. The evidence showed that Singh could choose when and where to use the Driver App, could go online or offline at his discretion, could accept or decline ride requests, could use other rideshare applications and pursue other work, received no employee benefits or salary, received a tax form rather than wages, owned and maintained the vehicle, paid for its insurance, and paid for fuel and other vehicle needs. The Platform Access Agreement also described Singh as an independent contractor.

The court held that Kamal did not identify admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute about Singh’s status. The fact that Singh may have been logged into the Driver App did not change the analysis because the app provided a dispatching and payment connection but did not establish the level of control needed for an employment relationship. The court also rejected Kamal’s reliance on the presence of Uber logos because he did not show that Singh’s vehicle displayed a logo at the time of the accident, and a logo alone would not establish employee status. Kamal’s argument that he was not a signatory to the agreement between Singh and Uber was accurate but did not address whether Singh was actually an independent contractor. The court therefore ruled that Uber could not be held vicariously liable for Singh’s conduct.

Vehicle ownership and direct liability

New York law can impose liability on a vehicle owner for injuries or property damage caused by someone using the vehicle with the owner’s permission. Uber submitted certified title and registration records showing Singh as the vehicle’s owner. The court found that Kamal did not rebut the resulting presumption that Singh, not Uber, owned the vehicle.

The court also rejected negligent-entrustment theories. Negligent entrustment can apply when an owner or person controlling a vehicle gives it to someone the person knew, or should have known, was not competent to operate it. Because Uber did not own or control Singh’s vehicle, and Kamal made no showing of the additional circumstances discussed by the court, Uber was entitled to judgment on claims based on primary liability as well.

Disposition

The court granted Uber’s motion for summary judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Uber from the action. The opinion states that Kamal’s claims against Singh and American Transit remain and will proceed to trial. Judge Henry J. Ricardo signed the memorandum and order.