In the case of Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 23-5038-KSM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2025 Marston, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a ride share Defendant in a case where the Plaintiff passenger was assaulted by the driver.
The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a ride share Defendant is not automatically liable anytime a driver hired over its App commits an assault.
The Plaintiff was noted to have failed to pled prior bad acts of the driver that should have put the Defendant on notice of the driver’s alleged dangerous propensities as required to prove a claim of negligent hiring.
The court noted that evidence of prior automobile accidents by the driver are not proof of violent propensities.
The court additionally found that there was no independent action for respondeat superior under the facts alleged.
The court additionally found that the act of assault passengers was not within the scope of a ride share driver’s employment.
The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a duty to train a driver on something as elementary as not assaulting passengers.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a ride share Defendant is not automatically liable anytime a driver hired over its App commits an assault.
The Plaintiff was noted to have failed to pled prior bad acts of the driver that should have put the Defendant on notice of the driver’s alleged dangerous propensities as required to prove a claim of negligent hiring.
The court noted that evidence of prior automobile accidents by the driver are not proof of violent propensities.
The court additionally found that there was no independent action for respondeat superior under the facts alleged.
The court additionally found that the act of assault passengers was not within the scope of a ride share driver’s employment.
The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a duty to train a driver on something as elementary as not assaulting passengers.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.