In a high-stakes case, Kim v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 252, review denied (Dec. 11, 2024), the court explored the boundaries of rideshare liability. The California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Uber, concluding that the company was not responsible for the actions of a driver who struck a pedestrian while his Uber app was offline. The plaintiff argued that, despite the driver's offline status, he could have been positioning himself to take advantage of surge pricing by heading to a higher demand area – potentially blurring the line between personal and professional driving. However, both the trial and appellate courts found this theory too speculative, with undisputed evidence supporting that the driver was not acting for Uber at the time of the accident.
Facts of the Case and Trial Court Ruling
This case involves a claim for vicarious liability against Uber Technologies, Inc., with the plaintiff seeking to hold Uber responsible for injuries he sustained as a pedestrian hit by driver Ralph Davis Wilson III at around 2:28 a.m. on January 19, 2020, in Los Angeles. At the time of the accident, Mr. Wilson was not logged into the Uber app, and his status was set to "offline" approximately four minutes prior to the collision. Further, Uber's records and Mr. Wilson's testimony confirmed that he was not available to accept ride requests, was not transporting a rider, and was not en route to pick up a rider at the time of the incident. Mr. Wilson testified that he had completed all app-based driving for the night and was on his way home after a personal trip to McDonald's when the accident occurred.
The plaintiff argued that inconsistencies in Mr. Wilson's testimony and other discovery responses about his driving activity that night, which also conflicted at times with Uber's records, raised a factual dispute over whether he was intending to go back online. Specifically, the plaintiff noted that drivers can toggle between "offline" and "available" status on the Uber app within seconds and can view "surge" areas (zones of high demand) while offline, which may incentivize drivers to remain near these areas even when they are not actively seeking rides. The plaintiff suggested that Mr. Wilson might have intended to return to "available" status by driving toward such an area.
In response, Uber argued that Mr. Wilson was acting purely in a personal capacity when the accident occurred, that what he might have intended was speculative, and that any inconsistencies in his discovery responses were immaterial. The trial court agreed, finding it would set a dangerous precedent to force Uber to trial for accidents that indisputably occurred when a driver was offline.
The Court of Appeal Affirmed
The plaintiff argued that the trial court made its decision based on "public policy perspectives as opposed to the existence of a triable issue of fact." The appellate court disagreed, finding that the trial court properly found no triable issue regarding the simple fact Mr. Wilson was offline at the time of the incident, and had been for four minutes.
In rejecting another of the plaintiff’s arguments, the appellate court noted that there was no evidence the driver toggled between "offline" and "available" on the night in question. Nor did the court agree that would make a difference, reasoning, “[i]n any event, whether he intended to drive later (and there is no evidence of that) is irrelevant to his status at the time of the accident, when he was indisputably offline and unable to receive or accept requests for rides.” Similarly, the appellate court agreed that arguments regarding inconsistencies in Mr. Miller’s discovery responses were immaterial. It reiterated the undisputed facts that Mr. Miller went offline, and then the accident occurred about 4 minutes later roughly a mile away. “The rest,” it found, “is immaterial.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the summary judgment in Uber’s favor.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces that rideshare companies cannot be held liable for driver's actions while they are logged off and acting independently. The incident at issue here occurred relatively close in time and space to the driver’s last use of the Uber app, yet that was insufficient. Nor was the court swayed by immaterial inconsistencies in the driver’s recollection of the precise sequence of events, since clear and undisputed evidence showed that the incident occurred after he was offline. The court's holding supports that any "offline" actions, even those near prior rideshare activity, cannot support a finding of liability against the company.