128 F. Supp. 3d 222
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Erik Search alleges he was stabbed by Uber driver Yohannes Deresse after summoning a ride via the Uber app; he sustained serious injuries and sued Uber and Deresse in D.C. court, later removed to federal court.
- Search asserts negligent hiring/training/supervision, respondeat superior (vicarious liability), apparent agency, a D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) claim, and a separate gross-negligence/punitive-damages count.
- Complaint alleges Uber: markets itself as a car service/private driver, sets fares, collects payments and pays drivers by direct deposit, requires drivers to use Uber’s app and meet specific performance/appearance rules, and represents that it conducts rigorous background checks and ongoing monitoring.
- Uber moved to dismiss several counts, submitting outside materials (a declaration and its User Agreement); the court declined to convert the motion to summary judgment because Plaintiff had no opportunity for discovery on those materials.
- The court dismissed Count I (negligent hiring/training/supervision) and Count VIII (gross negligence/punitive damages as separate causes of action) for failure to plead adequate factual detail, but denied dismissal of Count IV (respondeat superior), Count V (apparent agency), and Count VI (CPPA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision (Count I) | Uber failed to properly screen/train/supervise drivers (including Deresse) and had constructive notice of dangers | Allegations are conclusory; Plaintiff did not plead facts showing Uber’s screening was unreasonable or would have revealed a red flag | Dismissed — Complaint contains only conclusory allegations and lacks particularized facts to state plausible negligent-hiring/training claims |
| Respondeat superior / scope of employment (Count IV) | Deresse acted in furtherance of job-related dispute arising from Uber trip; vicarious liability available | Uber contends drivers are independent contractors and the stabbing was outside scope of employment | Denied (survives 12(b)(6)) — factual allegations permit a reasonable inference of employer control and that the assault grew out of a job-related encounter; scope and employment status are for the jury |
| Apparent agency (Count V) | Uber’s advertising/app and representations led passengers to reasonably believe drivers were Uber’s agents | Uber points to its User Agreement disclaiming agency | Denied (survives 12(b)(6)) — Court cannot consider User Agreement extrinsic evidence on motion to dismiss; Plaintiff adequately alleged misleading representations and reliance |
| D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (Count VI) | Uber misrepresented that drivers were rigorously screened/monitored; Search relied and was harmed | Uber asserts it delivered the promised service and relies on User Agreement disclaimers and that CPPA doesn’t cover personal-injury tort recovery | Denied (survives 12(b)(6)) — Plaintiff alleged misrepresentations and reliance sufficient for CPPA claim; extrinsic User Agreement cannot be considered at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual content to state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Schecter v. Merchants Home Delivery, Inc., 892 A.2d 415 (D.C. 2006) (factors showing employer control can support employee status)
- Moorehead v. District of Columbia, 747 A.2d 138 (D.C. 2000) (five-factor test for employer-employee determination)
- LeGrand v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 241 A.2d 734 (D.C. 1968) (establishing multi-factor control test)
- Hechinger Co. v. Johnson, 761 A.2d 15 (D.C. 2000) (assault may be within scope of employment if it grew out of job-related dispute)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Reddick, 398 A.2d 27 (D.C. 1979) (assault outside scope where not in furtherance of employer’s business)
- Makins v. District of Columbia, 861 A.2d 590 (D.C. 2004) (apparent authority depends on third-party perception)
- Wilson v. Good Humor Corp., 757 F.2d 1293 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (apparent agency doctrine prevents denying liability while profiting from company image)