Injured passengers and third parties sometimes need to pursue claims directly against Lyft when driver negligence causes accidents. Like Uber, Lyft uses the independent contractor model to limit corporate liability, but several legal avenues exist for holding the company accountable.
Lyft's Corporate Structure and Liability
Lyft classifies its drivers as independent contractors who use the Lyft platform to connect with passengers. This classification is central to Lyft's defense against direct liability claims, as companies generally are not responsible for the negligent acts of independent contractors.
However, the independent contractor defense is not absolute. Courts in various jurisdictions have examined whether the degree of control Lyft exercises over drivers—through app requirements, rating systems, pricing, and operational guidelines—creates an employment-like relationship that justifies imposing liability.
Legal Theories Against Lyft
Plaintiffs seeking to hold Lyft liable typically rely on several theories:
Negligent hiring and vetting: Lyft has a duty to reasonably screen drivers before allowing them on the platform. If Lyft failed to discover criminal history, driving violations, or other red flags that a reasonable background check would have revealed, Lyft may be directly liable.
Negligent retention: When Lyft receives complaints about dangerous driver behavior but continues allowing that driver to operate, negligent retention claims may apply.
Apparent agency: Because Lyft's branding, app, and operations create the reasonable impression that drivers are Lyft representatives, courts may find an apparent agency relationship making Lyft liable for driver conduct.
Platform negligence: Claims based on defects in Lyft's platform itself—such as app features that encourage dangerous driving behavior or inadequate safety protocols—target Lyft's direct conduct rather than driver negligence.
Arbitration and Class Action Waivers
Lyft's terms of service require users to resolve disputes through binding arbitration and waive the right to class action participation. These provisions significantly affect how claims proceed:
Passengers bound by arbitration must pursue individual claims through Lyft's arbitration process rather than court litigation.
Third parties not in contractual relationship with Lyft—other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists—are not bound by these terms and may pursue traditional lawsuits.
Some courts have found arbitration clauses unconscionable or unenforceable in specific circumstances, creating potential exceptions.
State-Specific Considerations
Legal treatment of rideshare companies varies by state:
Worker classification laws in California and other states have challenged the independent contractor model, potentially expanding Lyft's liability exposure.
State rideshare regulations may impose specific duties on transportation network companies that create additional liability theories.
Insurance requirements vary by state and may affect what coverage is available and how claims proceed.
Building a Case Against Lyft
To maximize chances of success against Lyft directly:
Investigate the driver for prior incidents, complaints, or red flags that Lyft should have discovered or acted upon.
Document Lyft's role in the accident, including any app features, policies, or pressures that may have contributed to the crash.
Preserve all communications with Lyft including accident reports, customer service interactions, and any responses to complaints.
Work with experienced counsel who understands rideshare litigation in your jurisdiction and can identify the strongest theories for your case.