Uber Not Liable for Driver’s Assault on Passenger, Judge Rules

A federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that Uber is not automatically liable for an assault committed by one of its drivers, dismissing a lawsuit brought by a passenger who was attacked. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that Uber knew or should have known about the driver’s violent tendencies.

Uber driver Darryl Holloway Jr. attacked passenger Antonio Matos at Philadelphia International Airport in July 2022. Matos sued Uber, alleging negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The court initially dismissed some claims with prejudice while allowing Matos to amend others. However, after Matos submitted a revised complaint, the judge ruled that it failed to address the deficiencies.

The court held that Matos did not provide evidence that Uber should have been aware of Holloway’s violent tendencies before allowing him to drive for the platform. It also rejected Matos’ argument that Uber had a duty to train drivers on not assaulting passengers. Additionally, Uber was not vicariously liable under Pennsylvania law, as the driver’s actions were deemed outside the scope of his employment. With these findings, the judge dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice.