Guillermo Acosta and Jose Molina v. Uber Technologies Inc. and Rasier, LLC, 08-24-00099-CV

Guillermo Acosta and Jose Molina were passengers injured in a car accident during a ride arranged through Uber’s ride-sourcing app.
Their Uber driver, Brian Keith Inman, allegedly ran a red light, causing the accident.
Acosta and Molina (Riders) sued Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC (Uber) for direct and vicarious liability under multiple legal theories.
Uber moved for summary judgment, arguing the driver was an independent contractor under Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2402 and denying liability under all theories.
Trial court granted Uber's motion, striking certain Riders’ filings; Riders appealed, claiming factual and legal errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Uber's driver was an independent contractor	Uber operated without required TNC permit, can’t claim 2402 immunity	Statute imposed impossible permit requirement; conditions were met	Driver was independent contractor; Uber protected by §2402.114
Direct liability for distracted driving	Uber’s app/business model compelled distracted driving, retaining control	Uber did not require distracting app use; no legal basis for such a claim	No admissible evidence of control; no cause of action recognized
Vicarious liability: Ostensible agency	Riders reasonably believed driver was Uber’s agent; Uber held him out	Riders agreed to terms stating third-party status; no affirmative holding-out	No fact issue; contract clear, no affirmative act by Uber
Vicarious liability: Joint enterprise	Statutory contractor status differs from common law & shouldn’t bar claim	Statute says ‘independent contractor for all purposes’	Statutory status bars joint enterprise claim

Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415 (Tex. 1985) (explains liability when a party retains control over independent contractor)
Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. Tatum, 554 S.W.3d 614 (Tex. 2018) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
Baptist Mem’l Hosp. Sys. v. Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. 1998) (ostensible agency and required elements)
Gonzalez v. Ramirez, 463 S.W.3d 499 (Tex. 2015) (distinction between suggestions vs. control over work methods)
Hoechst–Celanese Corp. v. Mendez, 967 S.W.2d 354 (Tex. 1998) (nexus between retained control and harm required for liability)
Shell Oil Co. v. Khan, 138 S.W.3d 288 (Tex. 2004) (mere recommendations are not evidence of control)
KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (summary judgment standards)
Lujan v. Navistar, Inc., 555 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2018) (burden shifting in summary judgment)
Gaines v. Kelly, 235 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. 2007) (relevant conduct for ostensible agency is that of principal)