Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Jane Doe brought a negligence claim against Uber Technologies, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries Rasier, LLC and Rasier CA, LLC. The claim arose from an August 18, 2018 assault by Brandon Sherman, a former Uber driver who posed as a current Uber driver. Sherman had been deactivated from Uber’s platform two months earlier after two separate complaints that he had sexually assaulted passengers.

Doe entered Sherman’s vehicle believing it was the Uber ride her boyfriend had ordered for her. Sherman drove her to a remote location, raped and strangled her, and was later arrested, convicted of kidnapping, strangulation, and witness intimidation, and sentenced to 11 years in prison.

The court had previously dismissed Doe’s claims based on ostensible agency and common-carrier negligence but allowed her negligence claim to proceed under a misfeasance theory. Misfeasance, as discussed by the court, concerns conduct that creates or increases a risk of harm. Uber later moved for summary judgment, arguing that California law barred Doe’s negligence claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the negligence claim failed because Uber did not owe Doe a duty of care. Under California law, a negligence claim requires a duty of care, a breach, and causation. The court treated the duty question as dispositive and therefore did not analyze the other negligence elements.

California generally does not require a person or business to protect others from criminal acts by third parties. The court identified two relevant exceptions: a special relationship that creates an affirmative duty to protect, and misfeasance, where the defendant’s conduct creates or increases the risk of harm.

The court rejected Doe’s argument that she had a special relationship with Uber as an Uber rider, guest, or invitee. It relied on a California appellate decision involving similar allegations that Uber riders were assaulted by people posing as Uber drivers. That decision held that Uber was not in a special relationship with the riders that created a duty to protect them from third-party assaults.

The court also rejected Doe’s four misfeasance theories: that Uber failed to retrieve its decal from Sherman after terminating him; shielded Sherman from criminal investigation and prosecution; failed to provide riders with tools to protect themselves despite knowing about assaults; and allowed people to request rides for others who did not have working phones.

The court concluded that these theories did not show that Sherman’s criminal conduct was a necessary component of Uber’s business or that Uber stimulated that conduct. The court explained that creating an opportunity for criminal conduct, even if the conduct is foreseeable, does not by itself constitute misfeasance. It also noted that Uber had terminated Sherman from the platform after the second complaint and that allowing rides to be ordered for other people did not encourage or relate to Sherman’s criminal conduct.

Because the case was in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied California law and followed the California appellate decision addressing the same general duty question. The court found no convincing evidence that the California Supreme Court would reject that decision’s reasoning.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Uber’s motion for summary judgment. It ruled that, as a matter of law, Uber did not owe Doe a duty of care and was entitled to judgment in its favor on her negligence claim.

The court also granted Doe’s second motion to file under seal portions of her opposition brief and related exhibits, but only as to the redactions identified in Uber’s supporting declaration. The order states that it disposes of Docket Nos. 220, 231, and 236, and that judgment would be entered by separate order.