486 F.Supp.3d 468
D. Mass.2020Background
- In April 2018 Murray used the Uber app and was picked up by driver Frederick Amfo; she alleges Amfo parked the car and raped her in the vehicle.
- Amfo was arrested on a rape charge and an immigration detainer was issued; he posted bail, fled to Ghana, and has not been located.
- Murray sued in Massachusetts Superior Court asserting negligence and negligent hiring/training/retention against Uber and assault/battery/false imprisonment/IIED against Amfo and Uber (respondeat superior/common carrier theories).
- Uber removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds; Murray moved to remand arguing Amfo did not consent because service on him was improper under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 90 §§ 3A/3C/3D.
- The district court held the statutory delegation-of-service provisions (§§ 3A/3D) apply only to claims "growing out of any accident or collision," so Murray’s attempted service was ineffective and unanimity was not required; remand was denied.
- On Uber’s motion to dismiss the court (a) dismissed Murray’s negligent hiring/training/retention claim and (b) dismissed claims seeking vicarious liability under respondeat superior; it denied dismissal of the common-carrier theory and Murray’s direct negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of removal / co-defendant consent | Murray: Amfo had been served under Mass. Gen. Laws c.90 §3A/3C (or §3D) so his consent to removal was required | Uber: Service under §3A/3C/3D was improper, so Amfo was not properly served and his consent was not required | Service by delegation statutes inapplicable because claim did not "grow out of any accident or collision"; unanimity rule inapplicable; remand denied |
| Common-carrier liability for Uber | Murray: Uber operates like a taxi (public app, indiscriminate service, fare-based) and exercises control over drivers, so common-carrier standard applies | Uber: As a TNC it is exempt from common-carrier regulation and not subject to common-carrier liability | On pleadings, Murray plausibly alleged facts sufficient to invoke common-carrier standard; claim survives dismissal |
| Respondeat superior (vicarious liability) | Murray: alternatively, Uber is vicariously liable for Amfo’s torts | Uber: Amfo was not an employee and/or the sexual assault was outside the scope of employment | As a matter of Massachusetts law, sexual assault is not within scope of employment; respondeat superior claim dismissed |
| Direct negligence and negligent hiring/training/retention | Murray: Uber negligently failed to implement adequate safety measures and negligently vetted/supervised Amfo | Uber: Murray’s allegations are conclusory and fail to plead facts showing causation or red flags about Amfo | General negligence claim (failure to implement safety features) survives; negligent hiring/training/retention claim dismissed for lack of factual detail |
Key Cases Cited
- Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U.S. 534 (rule requiring unanimity among properly joined and served defendants)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Gilmore v. Acme Taxi Co., 212 N.E.2d 235 (Mass.) (common-carrier duty to protect passengers)
- Jackson v. Old Colony St. Ry., 92 N.E. 725 (Mass.) (historical common-carrier principles)
- Doe v. Purity Supreme, Ltd., 664 N.E.2d 815 (Mass.) (sexual assault not within scope of employment for vicarious liability)
- Mt. Tom Motor Lines, Inc. v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 89 N.E.2d 3 (Mass.) (definition of holding out transportation to the public)