Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Jane Doe alleged that, on August 14, 2018, she entered a vehicle displaying an Uber decal after her boyfriend arranged an Uber ride for her. The driver had previously been an authorized Uber driver, but Uber had suspended his access to the driver application after learning about disturbing conduct during an earlier ride. Uber allegedly did not retrieve the decal. Doe alleged that the driver activated the vehicle’s child-proof locks, drove her to a remote location, and raped and partially strangled her.

Doe brought two state-law claims: (1) assault, battery, and false imprisonment by an ostensible agent, meaning a person whom a company has led someone reasonably to believe is its agent; and (2) negligence based on Uber’s alleged duties as a common carrier. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The opinion also addressed Doe’s request for punitive damages.

Ostensible-agency claim

The court held that Doe plausibly alleged ostensible agency at the pleading stage. Under California law, this theory requires allegations that the principal intentionally or carelessly created the impression of agency, that the plaintiff reasonably believed the person was the principal’s agent, and that the plaintiff was harmed because of that reliance. The court concluded that Uber’s advertising, its use of the decal to identify Uber drivers, its provision of the decal to the assailant, and its failure to retrieve the decal after suspending his application access supported a plausible inference that Uber created that impression. The court also found that Doe plausibly alleged her belief was reasonable and that she was harmed because she relied on it.

The court nevertheless ruled that Doe did not plausibly allege the assailant acted within the scope of his ostensible agency when he assaulted her. Applying California law, the court explained that an employer may be vicariously liable for an intentional or criminal tort only when the tort is connected to, grows out of, or is foreseeable from the employee’s work. The complaint did not plausibly allege that the sexual assault arose from the driver’s job of transporting Doe or was an outgrowth of his work duties. The court therefore dismissed the first claim.

Common-carrier negligence claim

The court ruled that Uber could qualify as a common carrier under California law despite being an app-based transportation network. A common carrier is an entity that holds itself out to the public to transport people or property for profit and owes passengers an especially high duty of care while they are in transit.

However, the court held that Doe did not plausibly allege that a common-carrier/passenger relationship existed when she was assaulted. California law limits the heightened common-carrier duty to the period when a passenger is in transit and until the passenger safely leaves the carrier’s vehicle. Doe never entered an authorized Uber vehicle, was not in Uber’s exclusive control, and remained free to go elsewhere or not attempt to board. The court therefore dismissed the second claim. It noted that this ruling did not mean Uber could not be liable under an ordinary negligence theory.

Punitive damages

The defendants also moved to dismiss Doe’s punitive-damages claim. The court explained that California law permits punitive damages for fraud, oppression, or malice, including conduct showing extreme indifference to a plaintiff’s rights or safety. The court concluded that Doe’s allegations that Uber intentionally failed to retrieve the decal, despite the alleged safety risk, could support the required level of extreme indifference at the pleading stage. Uber had not shown that the punitive-damages claim failed as a matter of law, so the court did not dismiss it.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first and second claims for relief, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint was due within 30 days of the order. The punitive-damages claim was not dismissed.