For a long time, Uber has argued that it isn’t a transportation company, but a software company that happens to facilitate rides. That distinction effectively collapsed in a recent order from the Northern District of California. When a business exerts control over the details of a journey and the safety of its passengers, the law eventually catches up to the reality of the relationship.
The Reality of the “App” Defense
In the litigation involving Uber passenger sexual assaults, the court recently addressed whether Uber should be held to the standards of a “common carrier” under North Carolina law. Uber argued against this classification, but the court found the reality of their business model tells a different story.
The test for a common carrier is straightforward: Does the company hold itself out to the public as a provider of transportation for hire to all people indifferently? Uber’s ubiquitous advertising and the control it exerts over the details of every ride make it clear that it is more than just a software company. It is a transportation provider.
Responsibility Cannot Be Outsourced
One of the most persistent defenses in the rideshare era is the “independent contractor” label. The argument is that if a driver isn’t technically an employee, the company isn’t responsible for what happens in the backseat. After investigation of rideshare companies and their structure, that explanation stops making sense.
The court’s order clarifies a fundamental truth about safety:
- A common carrier owes a non-delegable duty to its passengers.
- This duty is breached when a driver assaults a passenger, regardless of whether that driver is an employee or a contractor.
- There is no meaningful distinction here between an independent contractor and an employee acting outside the scope of their employment.
Ultimate, this order shows that if a company takes the fare and promises a safe passage, they own the responsibility for that safety from start to finish.
Statutory Limits and Common Law
Uber attempted to argue that state regulations for Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) should shield them from common law tort liability. They pointed to states like Florida and Texas, where legislatures explicitly granted such exemptions.
However, the North Carolina legislature chose not to include those protections. In the law, silence is often as meaningful as a statement. You cannot manufacture a statutory limitation on common law rights where the express terms of the law do not provide one.
Where the Liability Lies
This ruling simplifies the landscape for survivors. By granting partial summary judgment on Uber’s status as a common carrier, the court has removed a significant hurdle. Expert testimony regarding the intricacies of Uber’s business model was rendered irrelevant because the legal duty is now established.
When a passenger enters a vehicle, they are entrusting their safety to the entity that arranged the ride. Juries care about where the buck stops. In this case, the court has ruled it stops with Uber.
If you’re trying to understand whether the systems meant to protect passengers are actually working, or why they failed, talking with an attorney can help you get the answers you deserve.
