When Uber's insurance coverage proves inadequate or disputes arise about liability, accident victims may consider suing Uber directly. However, Uber's corporate structure and driver classification create significant legal barriers that plaintiffs must understand before pursuing litigation.
Uber's Independent Contractor Defense
Uber's primary defense against direct lawsuits is that drivers are independent contractors, not employees. Under traditional respondeat superior doctrine, employers are liable for employees' negligent acts within the scope of employment, but this liability generally doesn't extend to independent contractors.
Uber argues that because drivers set their own hours, use their own vehicles, and work for multiple platforms, they are independent businesses—not Uber employees. This classification has been upheld in many jurisdictions, limiting Uber's direct liability for driver negligence.
Theories for Holding Uber Liable
Despite the independent contractor defense, several legal theories may support claims against Uber:
Negligent hiring and retention: If Uber failed to adequately screen drivers or continued allowing dangerous drivers on the platform after receiving complaints, Uber may be directly liable for negligent hiring practices.
Negligent entrustment: Claims may argue Uber negligently entrusted vehicles (through its platform) to drivers it knew or should have known were unfit.
Agency by estoppel: Because passengers reasonably believe they are dealing with Uber (not individual drivers), Uber may be estopped from denying an agency relationship when passengers are injured.
Joint venture theory: Some courts have considered whether Uber and drivers operate as a joint venture, which would create shared liability.
Direct negligence: Claims based on Uber's own conduct—such as app design that distracts drivers, pressure to complete rides quickly, or failure to implement safety features—target Uber's direct negligence rather than vicarious liability for drivers.
The Arbitration Obstacle
Uber's terms of service include mandatory arbitration clauses requiring users to resolve disputes through individual arbitration rather than court litigation. These clauses also typically waive the right to participate in class actions.
Passengers who agreed to Uber's terms may be bound by arbitration requirements, though exceptions exist for certain claims and some courts have found arbitration clauses unenforceable in specific circumstances.
Third parties injured by Uber drivers—other motorists, pedestrians, cyclists—generally are not bound by Uber's terms and can pursue traditional litigation.
State Law Variations
Some states have enacted laws affecting rideshare liability:
California's AB5 and similar laws have challenged the independent contractor classification, potentially expanding Uber's liability in certain states.
State rideshare regulations may impose specific insurance requirements or liability standards that affect legal claims.
Pursuing Claims Against Uber
Accident victims considering legal action against Uber should:
Document everything including ride receipts, app screenshots, driver information, and any prior complaints about the driver.
Preserve evidence of Uber's conduct such as app notifications that may have distracted the driver or evidence of inadequate background checks.
Consult an experienced attorney who understands rideshare litigation and can evaluate which legal theories offer the best path to recovery in your jurisdiction.