A federal jury in the United States ruled on Thursday that Uber must pay $8.5 million in damages after finding merit in a lawsuit brought by a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. This verdict could influence thousands of similar cases pending against the ride-hailing company.
The case, filed by plaintiff Jaylynn Dean, marked the first trial among more than 3,000 similar lawsuits consolidated in U.S. federal court against Uber. Such trials are referred to as "bellwether" cases, which serve to test legal theories and help assess potential settlement amounts.
The jury determined that the driver was an employee of Uber, thereby holding the company responsible for his actions. It awarded Dean $8.5 million in compensatory damages but declined to impose punitive damages. Dean's legal team had sought over $140 million in compensation.
A spokesperson for Uber noted in a statement that the jury rejected Dean's additional claims of company negligence or safety system failures, adding that the firm plans to appeal the decision. The spokesperson stated that the ruling affirms Uber's responsible conduct and substantial investments in passenger safety.
In her lawsuit, Dean claimed she was intoxicated when she hired an Uber to travel from her boyfriend's residence to a hotel. She alleged that the driver repeatedly asked her harassing questions during the ride before stopping the vehicle and sexually assaulting her.
Dean, a resident of Oklahoma, sued Uber in 2023, one month after the assault occurred in Arizona. She argued that Uber was aware of multiple sexual assault incidents involving its drivers but failed to implement basic safety measures to protect passengers. Such allegations have long troubled the company, frequently making headlines and drawing scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers.
Uber has faced numerous safety controversies, including accusations of inadequate driver screening and criticism that its corporate culture prioritizes growth over passenger protection. The company has maintained that it should not be held liable for criminal acts committed by drivers using its platform, asserting that its background checks and disclosures regarding assault incidents are sufficient.
The firm insists that its drivers are independent contractors, not employees, and that it cannot be held responsible for actions falling outside the scope of their reasonable duties, regardless of their classification.
Comments