Legal Options for Survivors of Sexual Assault in Rideshare Vehicles

What the Data Shows: This Is Not an Isolated Problem

This issue is not hypothetical. It is documented.

In their own safety reports, Uber has acknowledged receiving thousands of sexual assault reports each year nationwide. These reports include a wide spectrum of misconduct, ranging from non-consensual sexual touching to rape.

What matters legally is not just that assaults occurred, but that the volume and consistency of reports point to systemic safety failures—failures that plaintiffs’ attorneys argue were foreseeable and preventable.

Civil lawsuits have increasingly focused on whether rideshare companies prioritized rapid growth and driver onboarding over meaningful safety protections for passengers.

Why the Company Can Be Liable—Not Just the Driver

Rideshare companies often respond to assaults by emphasizing that drivers are “independent contractors.” That argument is designed to limit responsibility.

Successful civil cases do not rely on vicarious liability alone. They focus on direct negligence by the company itself—decisions the platform made (or failed to make) that created unreasonable risk.

Common theories include:

1. Account Sharing and Identity Failures

One recurring issue is “account renting,” where a vetted driver allows an unvetted individual to use their account to pick up passengers.

Rideshare companies have facial recognition and verification tools capable of detecting this behavior. Plaintiffs argue these tools were either underused or inconsistently enforced, allowing unauthorized drivers access to passengers.

From a legal standpoint, this raises questions of negligent security and failure to implement available safeguards.

2. Failure to Remove Known Dangerous Drivers (Negligent Retention)

In many cases, litigation uncovers prior complaints about the same driver—reports of inappropriate comments, locked doors, detours, or other alarming behavior.

When a company receives warning signs and allows a driver to continue operating, it may be liable for negligent retention. The legal question becomes whether the company knowingly left a dangerous individual in a position of trust.

3. Inadequate Background Checks

Uber and Lyft rely primarily on name-based background checks conducted by third-party vendors. In California, they do not require fingerprint-based Live Scan checks—the standard used for many safety-sensitive professions.

Name-based checks can miss criminal history tied to aliases or incomplete reporting across jurisdictions. Plaintiffs argue that failing to adopt more robust screening—despite the foreseeability of harm—constitutes negligence.

AB 2777: California’s Expanded Time Window for Survivors

Historically, many survivors were prevented from filing civil lawsuits simply because the statute of limitations had expired before they were ready to come forward.

That changed with Assembly Bill 2777, known as the Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act.

The Key Deadline

If you were sexually assaulted as an adult on or after January 1, 2009, California law has temporarily revived your claim—even if it was previously time-barred.

You generally have until December 31, 2026 to file a civil lawsuit.

Once that window closes, older claims may again be permanently barred. Timing matters.

Criminal Cases vs. Civil Lawsuits: What You Control

Survivors are often told to “report it to the police,” which can be an important step—but it is not the only one.

Criminal cases and civil cases are separate systems with different goals and standards.

Criminal cases are controlled by the District Attorney. The goal is punishment, and the burden of proof is extremely high.

Civil cases are controlled by the survivor and their attorney. The goal is accountability and compensation—for therapy, trauma, lost income, and loss of quality of life.

Importantly, a civil case does not require a criminal conviction. Even if prosecutors declined to file charges, a survivor can still prevail in civil court by proving the assault was more likely than not to have occurred.

Protecting Privacy and Anonymity

Fear of public exposure is one of the biggest barriers survivors face. California law provides tools to protect privacy throughout the civil process.

Common protections include:

• Jane Doe filings, which keep the survivor’s legal name off public court records
• Confidential mediation and settlement, which resolves most cases outside public trial
• Sealed records, preventing public access to sensitive medical or psychological information

A properly handled civil case prioritizes dignity and control at every stage.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you sue a rideshare company for sexual assault?

Yes. Survivors often sue the driver for assault and battery, and the company for negligence—such as negligent hiring, negligent retention, or failure to implement reasonable safety measures.

How much do rideshare assault cases settle for?

Settlement amounts vary significantly depending on the severity of the assault, the lasting impact on the survivor, and what the company knew—or should have known—about the driver’s history. Many cases resolve confidentially, but serious cases can result in substantial compensation intended to support long-term recovery.

What is the deadline to file in California?

For adult survivors of sexual assault occurring on or after January 1, 2009, the current deadline under AB 2777 is December 31, 2026. Claims involving minors follow different timelines. An attorney can help assess which statute applies.

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.