New Ruling Could Make Uber Responsible for Rider Safety Even When Drivers Are Independent Contractors

A federal judge has recently ruled that Uber owes a non-delegable duty to its passengers, meaning the company may be held legally responsible for rider safety even when harm is caused by a driver classified as an independent contractor, Law360.com reported.

The decision was issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing more than 3,000 federally consolidated sexual assault lawsuits against Uber in multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California.

The ruling effectively cuts through one of Uber’s core defenses. For years, the company has argued that it operates as a technology platform connecting riders and drivers, and therefore should not be liable for the criminal acts of those drivers. A non-delegable duty, however, suggests that certain responsibilities, such as ensuring passenger safety, cannot be outsourced or avoided through contractor relationships.

This comes at a pivotal moment in the litigation. In the first federal bellwether MDL trial, a jury awarded $8.5 million to a plaintiff, finding that the driver acted as an agent of Uber and holding the company liable under that theory. The verdict demonstrated that juries may be willing to extend responsibility to Uber under certain legal frameworks, even while rejecting broader negligence claims.

In October 2025, the first California state court trial produced a more complicated outcome. Jurors found Uber negligent in its safety practices but concluded that the negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault, resulting in no liability for damages. That split verdict highlighted the challenge plaintiffs face in connecting corporate conduct directly to individual incidents.

The newly recognized non-delegable duty may help bridge that gap. While negligence findings alone have not consistently resulted in liability, a duty that cannot be delegated could make it easier for plaintiffs to argue that Uber bears ultimate responsibility for what happens during rides arranged through its platform.

This ruling also intersects with Uber’s ongoing efforts to avoid classification as a common carrier. While the company has sought to limit its obligations by emphasizing its role as a technology intermediary, courts are increasingly examining the degree of control Uber exercises over drivers, pricing, and the overall ride experience.

With additional bellwether trials expected, including proceedings in North Carolina, these legal theories are no longer abstract. They are actively shaping how juries will be instructed, how liability will be argued, and how thousands of pending claims may ultimately be resolved.

For survivors, the significance is clear. The question is no longer just whether Uber can be held liable in isolated cases, but whether the legal framework is shifting toward recognizing a broader, more consistent duty to protect passengers.