A federal jury in Raleigh, North Carolina, delivered a verdict on Monday ordering Uber to pay $5,000 to a plaintiff who said she was sexually assaulted by a driver she engaged through the ride-hailing app. The trial in federal court began on April 14 and the jury's decision follows litigation that has produced other significant outcomes in separate test cases.
The plaintiff, whose name does not appear in the court filings, testified that the incident occurred in March 2019. She says that as she arrived at her destination just before 2 a.m., the driver grabbed her inner thigh and asked if he could "keep it with him," prompting her to exit the vehicle and flee. The jury found in her favor and set damages at $5,000.
Earlier this year a different jury in Arizona awarded $8.5 million to another woman who alleged an Uber driver had raped her when she was 19. Both of those trials are being treated as bellwether cases - test trials intended to help gauge the potential value and trajectory of the broader litigation, which includes roughly 3,300 similar claims consolidated in federal court.
At trial, Uber argued that it is a software company rather than a "common carrier" such as a taxi service, and therefore does not owe the heightened duty to protect passengers that common carrier status imposes under North Carolina law. The company also maintained that the drivers involved are independent contractors, and that it cannot be held liable for their individual actions on that basis.
In addition, Uber contested the plaintiff's claim of injury, pointing to her medical records. The company argued that those records reflected longstanding mental health and substance abuse issues predating 2019, and that the plaintiff had not established harm caused by the episode in question.
An Uber spokesperson responded to the verdict by noting that the amount awarded represents a tiny fraction of the damages the plaintiff sought and said the result "should further bring these cases back to reality." The spokesperson added: "That said, we believe the jury was once again incorrectly instructed on the question of liability and have strong grounds for appeal on that important point."
Attorneys for the plaintiff described the outcome as a clear message that Uber cannot evade responsibility for the conduct of drivers and criticized what they called the company's focus on the plaintiff's personal history during the trial.
Beyond the federal cases, Uber is also facing more than 500 additional suits in California state court alleging similar misconduct by drivers. In one California trial last September, a jury found that Uber had failed to implement measures to protect the plaintiff's safety, but also concluded that the company's negligence was not a substantial factor in causing her harm. That was the only trial to reach a verdict so far in the California track.
With thousands of lawsuits consolidated in federal court and hundreds more pending in state court, these bellwether results will be closely watched by litigants on both sides as potential benchmarks for settlement negotiations or other resolutions. The jury instructions and the legal characterization of Uber's role - whether as a software platform or as something akin to a common carrier - have emerged as central contested issues that may shape appeals and further trials.