551 F.Supp.3d 341
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a June 7, 2018 overnight ride from Manhattan to Rye Brook; she alleges physical injuries and ongoing PTSD.
- Plaintiff used Uber’s VIP option; the driver deviated/stopped during the trip and assaulted her in the backseat.
- Complaint alleges Uber advertises itself as providing the "safest rides on the road," targets female riders with safety messaging, and knew of numerous sexual-assault reports (Uber disclosed ~6,000 U.S. reports for 2017–2018).
- Claims pleaded: negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation, and New York GBL § 349 deceptive-practices claim; Uber moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Key legal disputes: whether Uber is a common carrier under New York law (and thus owes a special duty), adequacy of negligent-hiring/supervision pleading as to this driver, whether safety advertising is actionable (puffery vs. falsifiable misrepresentation), and whether NIED survives.
- Court: denied in part and granted in part without prejudice—allowed negligent-misrepresentation and GBL § 349 claims to proceed; dismissed common-carrier and negligent-hiring/supervision/NIED claims for pleading deficiencies but granted leave to amend limited issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uber is a common carrier under NY law (duty to passengers) | Uber operates like taxis, offers service to the public, and exerts control over drivers—so common-carrier duty applies | NY legislation created a TNC regime and states TNCs "shall not be deemed a common carrier"; Uber limits access and can deactivate users | Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations showing Uber is a common carrier under NY law; claim dismissed but leave to amend to add facts on common-carrier status |
| Negligent hiring/screening/supervision as to this driver | Uber had notice of widespread assaults and failed to screen/monitor drivers, causing this assault | Plaintiff pleads no driver-specific prior misconduct or facts Uber knew about this driver’s propensity | Dismissed: plaintiff failed to allege employer knew or should have known specific propensity of this driver; leave to amend to add driver-specific facts |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (direct-duty theory) | Uber breached a duty to provide safe transport and plaintiff suffered severe emotional harm | Defendant: underlying tort was intentional (assault), and NIED cannot be maintained in face of duplicate negligence claims | Dismissed: duplicative of negligence claim and dependent on showing a duty (common-carrier) which was not adequately pled; leave to amend limited to duty allegations |
| Negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation & GBL § 349 (advertising) | Uber’s safety ads and representations induced reliance; statements concealed risks (e.g., sexual assault) and caused plaintiff to ride | Many safety statements are puffery/aspirational and not actionable | Court found some safety statements could be falsifiable and materially misleading in context (e.g., "safest rides on the road"); negligent misrepresentation and GBL § 349 claims survive; plaintiff adequately alleged transaction and loss causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: plausibility rule)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and the need for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation of discovery)
- Murray v. Uber Techs., Inc., 486 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D. Mass. 2020) (held Uber plausibly subject to common-carrier standard at pleading stage under Massachusetts law)
- Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (found app-based TNC could be treated as common carrier under California law)
- L.A. Taxi Coop., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 852 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (found Uber safety claims could be actionable rather than mere puffery)
- Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (common carriers now held to ordinary negligence standard)
- Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 750 N.E.2d 1055 (N.Y. 2001) (special duty arises from relationships placing defendant best able to protect plaintiff)
- Judith M. v. Sisters of Charity Hosp., 715 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1999) (intentional torts by employees often outside scope of employment for respondeat superior analysis)