TL;DR:
Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft can be held responsible if a driver assaults someone. They can’t just say, “He was an independent contractor, so it’s not our problem.” The law has several ways to hold them accountable. Even if one defense works, others might not. Courts have supported claims based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, apparent agency, and the common carrier duty.
Uber and Lyft love to say, “Don’t blame us, the driver wasn’t our employee.” They hope that’s the end of it. But in California, courts just won’t let them off that easily.
There isn’t just one reason why a rideshare company is liable for driver assault. There are a few, and they depend on what the company knew, what it did, and even how it described itself to the person who got hurt.
Why “Independent Contractor” Isn’t a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
California passed Proposition 22. Drivers for Uber and Lyft count as independent contractors. Because of this, one legal rule called “respondeat superior” doesn’t work anymore. That rule says companies are always responsible for what their employees do while working.
But that’s just one way. California law keeps other doors open, even if the driver isn’t an employee. This matters a lot. Rideshare companies can be liable for driver assaults, even after Prop 22. These other legal rules don’t care if someone is called an employee or a contractor.
Negligent Hiring: The Company Chose That Driver
Negligent hiring asks a simple question: Did the company do a good job checking out this driver before letting them pick up passengers?
Uber and Lyft use quick name-based background checks. These checks save time and money, but they’re not as thorough as fingerprint checks, like the ones used for teachers and nurses. Name-based checks can miss crimes linked to fake names or records from other states. In December 2025, an investigation showed that in 22 states, someone with a felony could still drive for Uber if the crime was more than seven years old.
If a driver with a bad history hurts a passenger, it’s a problem with how the company screened them, not what job title they had.
Negligent Retention: The Company Kept That Driver on the Road
Negligent retention is all about what the company did after people started complaining about a driver. Uber gets reports through its app, through customer service, and even from the police. When the complaints start stacking up, and the driver is still out picking people up, that’s a risk the company decided to take.
You don’t have to prove the company knew for sure that this driver would attack this passenger. What matters is that there were warning signs that the company ignored. In February 2026, a jury awarded $8.5 million to a survivor because the company saw those warnings in the driver’s record but didn’t act.
At the Law Offices of John C. Ye, the first thing we do in a rideshare assault lawsuit is pull up the driver’s history of complaints. What the company knew before you ever got in the car often matters more than what happened during your ride.
Apparent Agency: The Company Made You Trust the Driver
Apparent agency was the reason Uber lost the first big federal trial on this issue. You don’t need to show the driver was an employee, or that Uber messed up background checks, or that there were old complaints. The only question is simple. Did the company make you believe this driver was working for them?
Think about it. You open the Uber app and see their logo. You get updates from Uber. The app tells you the car is arriving, then lets you pay and rate the ride, all inside Uber’s system. Every part of the ride tells you this is an Uber driver. The company is the face you see every step of the way.
So if an Uber driver assaults you, the apparent agency says Uber is responsible for the trust they developed.
The Common Carrier Duty: When the Law Says “Take Extra Care”
Under California Civil Code Section 2100, companies that carry people for money have to be extra careful. It sets the highest bar in the state. Airlines, buses, taxis, and yes, Uber drivers all have to meet it.
In April 2026, Judge Charles Breyer said Uber can’t avoid responsibility by calling the drivers contractors. They are still responsible for your safety.
In the Ninth Circuit case in January 2025, courts made it clear: the risk of assault by an Uber driver wouldn’t even exist without Uber’s own choices.
How Do These Theories Apply to Lyft?
Everything you just read about Uber applies to Lyft, too.
Every legal theory works the same way, no matter which app you used. The common carrier rule, apparent agency, negligent hiring, and negligent retention all count for Lyft driver assault liability.
Lyft hasn’t put out a safety report since 2021. That means we don’t get to see their complaint numbers or know how they decide which drivers to keep. With Uber, at least there’s some public data to look at. For Lyft, we have to dig for answers in court. When those records finally come out, they’re extra important. In early 2026, a federal court set up a big group case against Lyft with about 2,000 claims. The results are turning out the same. The same rules, the same problems.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Prop 22 let Uber off the hook if a driver assaults someone?
No. Prop 22 only blocked one legal theory, called respondeat superior. Negligent hiring, negligent retention, apparent agency, and the common carrier duty can still apply.
What does “apparent agency” mean, and why did it make Uber lose the first trial?
Apparent agency means a company is on the hook if it makes you think someone is working for them, and you trust that person because of it. Uber’s app does just that. The jury saw it and decided Uber was responsible in February 2026, even when other claims didn’t win.
How is negligent hiring different from negligent retention?
Negligent hiring is about what the company missed before letting a driver on the road. Negligent retention is about what the company ignored after complaints started coming in. Both target the company’s own choices, not the driver’s.
Does this highest “common carrier” standard count for Lyft, too?
Yes. Both Uber and Lyft are seen as common carriers in California. Judge Breyer’s ruling says this rule can’t be dodged by calling drivers contractors. That goes for both companies.
Can a lawsuit use more than one liability theory at the same time?
Absolutely. Most rideshare assault cases use a mix of these legal theories. The court looks at each one on its own. You can win on one, a few, or even all of them.
What kind of proof do these cases use?
Lawyers look for things like driver complaint histories, background check results, internal risk ratings, and company safety messages. Most of this evidence comes straight from the rideshare company’s own records during the lawsuit.
There’s More Than One Way to Win Your Rideshare Case
If something like this happened to you or someone you care about, don’t wait. Reach out to us.
Your first consultation is free, private, and there’s no pressure. We’ll look at your situation and explain which legal theories fit your case.
Key Takeaways
- Prop 22 blocks only one legal theory. Others like negligent hiring, negligent retention, apparent agency, and the common carrier duty still apply.
- Uber lost big in February 2026 because the app made the driver look like an official Uber rep.
- Negligent retention is often the strongest argument when the company ignored earlier complaints about a driver.
- California law holds rideshare companies to the highest standard of care. They can’t pass this job off to someone else and walk away.
- Every legal theory here works just the same for Lyft. The proof always lives inside the company’s own records.
