Suing Uber vs. Suing the Driver: Who Is Actually Liable?

Vicarious Liability: When the Company Can Still Be Responsible

Despite Proposition 22, there are still legal pathways that allow injured passengers to reach Uber’s insurance coverage—and, in some cases, hold the company responsible.

The key is understanding how liability is framed.

1. Public Utilities Code § 5354 (The Statutory Safety Exception)

While labor law classifies drivers as contractors, California’s transportation laws treat passenger safety differently.

Under Public Utilities Code § 5354, charter-party carriers can be held liable for the acts of their agents. Many courts have recognized that, for purposes of passenger safety, Uber cannot completely delegate responsibility to drivers.

In practical terms, this statute is often used to ensure that Uber’s $1 million commercial insurance policy applies when a passenger is injured during an active ride.

2. Ostensible Agency

Ostensible agency focuses on perception and reliance.

The argument is simple: Uber presents drivers as part of its service, and passengers reasonably rely on Uber’s reputation and safety representations when getting into the car.

Relevant facts often include:

• The Uber logo or trade dress on the vehicle
• Payment processed entirely through the Uber app
• Uber setting fares, routes, and ride terms

Under this theory, Uber can be treated as responsible because it created the appearance that the driver was acting on its behalf.

Direct Negligence Claims Against Uber

If the goal is to go beyond insurance limits and hold Uber accountable for its own conduct, the case must be framed as direct negligence, not just a car accident.

These claims are especially important in cases involving sexual assault, road rage, or repeat safety violations.

Negligent Hiring and Background Checks

California requires rideshare companies to perform background checks, but Uber relies primarily on name-based checks conducted by third-party vendors. Uber does not require Live Scan fingerprinting, which connects to more comprehensive criminal databases.

Name-based checks can miss prior convictions tied to aliases or out-of-state records.

If a driver commits a violent act and later investigation shows that a more robust screening process would have revealed a dangerous history, Uber may face liability for negligent hiring.

Negligent Retention

Negligent retention focuses on what Uber knew—or should have known—after a driver was already on the platform.

In some cases, discovery reveals that:

• Prior passengers complained about erratic or aggressive driving
• There were reports of intoxication, threats, or inappropriate behavior
• Uber failed to suspend or deactivate the driver despite warning signs

If a company keeps a dangerous driver active in order to continue collecting fees, that decision can support a negligent retention claim.

Why the Distinction Matters: Assets vs. Insurance

Understanding who you sue is ultimately about where recovery comes from.

Suing the Driver Personally

Most rideshare drivers do not have significant personal assets. Even if you win a judgment against the driver, collecting on it can be difficult or impossible.

Personal auto insurance typically denies coverage when a driver is operating for profit. The result is often a “paper judgment”—a legal win with no practical recovery.

Suing the Driver to Trigger Uber’s Insurance

In most rideshare accident cases, the strategic goal is not the driver’s bank account—it’s Uber’s commercial insurance policy.

By naming the driver as a defendant, Uber’s insurer steps in to defend the case and pay any settlement or judgment. You are technically suing the driver, but the money comes from Uber’s insurance carrier.

This is how most rideshare injury cases are actually resolved.

Why Some Cases Name Both the Driver and Uber

In more serious cases, the strongest strategy is often a hybrid lawsuit naming both the driver and Uber.

This approach serves two purposes:

1. It ensures Uber’s insurance policy is triggered, and
2. It preserves direct negligence claims against Uber

Direct claims against Uber are also the gateway to punitive damages. Insurance can pay compensatory damages (medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering), but it cannot pay punitive damages.

If Uber’s conduct is shown to be reckless—such as knowingly keeping a dangerous driver on the platform—punitive damages must be paid by the company itself, not its insurer.

Reminder:
This content is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Every case is different. If you have questions about your rights or deadlines, consult a qualified attorney promptly.