Linzy v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

Background

Shaarille Linzy sued Uber Technologies, Inc. after Jose Alemar, who sometimes drove for Uber, struck her with a car while she was walking in the Bronx on December 5, 2019. Linzy asserted claims based on vicarious liability and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. Uber moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that Alemar was not driving for Uber when the collision occurred. The parties agreed that Uber did not own, lease, or otherwise control Alemar’s car.

Uber relied on records showing that Alemar was offline in Uber’s Driver App at the time of the collision and did not become available again until several hours later. Linzy relied on Alemar’s deposition testimony from a related state-court action. Alemar testified that he had just turned on the Uber application, had not yet worked, and had been on the app for approximately ten to fifteen minutes before hitting Linzy.

Deposition testimony

The court held that it could consider Alemar’s deposition testimony when deciding summary judgment. Although Uber argued that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay and did not meet the requirements for using a deposition from an earlier action, the court explained that evidence supporting or opposing summary judgment need not be in its final trial form if it could be presented in admissible form at trial. The court found that Alemar’s testimony was based on personal knowledge and described facts that could be admissible at trial.

Scope of employment

Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied New York substantive law. Under that law, a worker acts within the scope of employment when the employer is, or could be, exercising some control over the worker’s activities and the worker is doing something in furtherance of duties owed to the employer. The question ordinarily depends heavily on the facts and is generally for a jury.

The court found an unresolved factual issue because Alemar’s testimony that the app was on and that he was about to start working for Uber created ambiguity about how he was using the app immediately before the collision. The court also considered a New York appellate decision involving an Uber driver and concluded that evidence showing a driver had logged off or was not online was not, by itself, enough to eliminate all factual questions about whether the driver was acting within the scope of employment.

The court noted that Uber had asserted in briefing that its drivers were independent contractors, but Uber had not moved for summary judgment on that ground. The court therefore did not decide whether Alemar was an employee or an independent contractor.

Disposition

The court held that a reasonable jury could conclude that Alemar was within the scope of employment when he struck Linzy. It therefore denied Uber’s motion for summary judgment. The court also denied as moot Uber’s motion for oral argument. The court directed the parties to appear for a telephonic status conference and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two motions.