79 Cal.App.5th 410
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Three women (Jane Doe Nos. 1–3) were abducted and sexually assaulted by criminals who posed as Uber drivers using Uber-branded decals printed from Uber’s website; none of the assailants were authorized drivers.
- The Uber app matches riders with drivers and supplies riders the driver’s name, photo, license-plate number, car description, and a GPS-based pickup location; Uber also promoted the service as a safe alternative to drunk driving.
- Plaintiffs allege Uber knew of a recurring “fake Uber” scheme (reports and police alerts), failed to warn users or implement additional safety measures, concealed reports/assaults, and made decals freely printable and untracked.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence and strict products liability; the trial court sustained Uber’s demurrer to the negligence claim without leave to amend and dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed only the negligence ruling.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: no special relationship (common-carrier or contract-based) existed to impose a duty to protect or warn, and Uber’s alleged conduct did not constitute actionable misfeasance because third-party crime was not a "necessary component" of Uber’s services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Uber owed a common‑carrier duty to protect waiting riders | Plaintiffs were accepted as passengers and waiting at designated pickup points; Uber’s control via the app created a carrier‑passenger relationship and duty to warn/protect | Uber had no control over plaintiffs’ movements or safety while they waited; GPS pickup guidance ≠ the control typical of common carriers or terminals | No common‑carrier special relationship or heightened duty; common‑carrier duty applies when carrier retains control tied to travel, which was not alleged here |
| Whether Uber’s website statements created a contract‑based duty to protect | Language promising “safe pickups” and safety representations implied a contractual promise to protect riders while they wait | No express promise to protect; extracontractual safety language not sufficiently specific to imply a contractual duty | No contract‑based special relationship; website language insufficiently definite to impose an affirmative contractual duty |
| Whether Uber’s conduct constituted misfeasance (an affirmative act creating the risk) | Uber’s business model, safety marketing, decal availability, defective matching, and alleged concealment actively created or worsened a foreseeable risk of the fake‑Uber assaults | Even if foreseeable, creating an opportunity for crime is not misfeasance unless the defendant’s conduct actively urged or made the criminal conduct a necessary component of the service | No misfeasance: plaintiffs alleged foreseeability and opportunity but not that criminal conduct was a "necessary component" or that Uber encouraged the specific criminal acts; therefore no duty absent a special relationship |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend | Plaintiffs proffered additional factual allegations they might add (more detail on decal access, cooperation with police, policies) | The proffered facts mostly repeat or particularize existing allegations and would not cure the legal defects | Denial of leave to amend affirmed: no reasonable possibility the proposed amendments would state a legally cognizable duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. USA Taekwondo, 11 Cal.5th 204 (2021) (reaffirms no‑duty‑to‑protect rule and two‑step special‑relationship/Rowland analysis)
- Weirum v. RKP Gen., Inc., 15 Cal.3d 40 (1975) (misfeasance liability where defendant’s affirmative conduct foreseeably stimulated dangerous third‑party conduct)
- Sakiyama v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc., 110 Cal.App.4th 398 (2003) (distinguishes misfeasance; third‑party crime must be a “necessary component” of defendant’s conduct to impose duty)
- Melton v. Boustred, 183 Cal.App.4th 521 (2010) (applies the necessary‑component test and limits Weirum‑style liability)
- Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108 (1968) (policy factors for limiting duties once a special relationship is found)
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985) (standard of review on demurrer and leave‑to‑amend analysis)
- Churchman v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 39 Cal.App.5th 246 (2019) (discusses scope and timing of common‑carrier duty)
- Falls v. San Francisco etc. R.R. Co., 97 Cal. 114 (1893) (historical rationale for heightened carrier duty of care)
- Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol, 26 Cal.4th 703 (2001) (example of affirmative conduct creating peril by placing plaintiff in a dangerous position)