Are Uber Drivers Liable for Accidents?

No, Uber drivers aren’t liable for accidents. But a car crash or passenger injury case is hardly ever an “accident.” Drivers accidentally lock their keys in their cars. They don’t accidentally engage in one of the harmful activities described below and cause vehicle collisions. The result (a collision) may be unintentional, but the conduct (harmful driving activity) is intentional. 

To drive this point home, many government and media organizations, including the New York Times, now use the phrase “car crash” in lieu of “car accident.”

Intentional criminal conduct is punishable in criminal court, and intentional conduct is actionable in civil court. In a negligence action, a Newark personal injury lawyer can obtain compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Additional punitive damages are available as well, in some extreme cases.

Legal Responsibility

To most South Jersey personal injury lawyers, “liability” includes both legal and financial responsibility. Let’s look at legal responsibility first.

Ordinary Negligence

Basically, ordinary negligence is a lack of ordinary care. In terms of Uber driver accident liability, that standard of care is a duty of utmost care.

Driving during a heavy rainstorm illustrates the difference between the duty of reasonable care, which applies to most noncommercial motorists, and the duty of utmost care. Most noncommercial drivers have a duty to slow down and be more careful when it’s raining hard. Arguably, commercial drivers, like Uber drivers, must pull over until the rain stops, or at least until it lessens.

Uber drivers are legally responsible for damages if their conduct falls below the standard of care. Some examples of such misconduct include:

• Aggressive operation (excessive speed, unsafe turn, etc,) and
• Operator impairment (driving under the influence of drugs, while extremely fatigued, etc.)

The burden of proof in a civil case is only a preponderance of the evidence, or more likely than not. That’s one of the lowest evidence thresholds in New Jersey law. The combination of a low burden of proof and a high duty of care means that almost all Uber driver mistakes constitute negligence.

Negligence Per Se

Frequently, emergency responders issue citations to at-fault drivers. This action makes the initial insurance claims process easier for the other driver. If emergency responders issue citations, the negligence per se rule could apply. A tortfeasor (negligent driver) could be liable for damages as a matter of law if:

• S/he violates a safety law, and
• That violation substantially causes injury.

Evidence may not be necessary to establish legal responsibility, but it is necessary to establish damages. Usually, there’s a direct relationship between the amount of evidence a Central Jersey personal injury lawyer collects and the size of an Uber accident settlement.

No Legal Responsibility

Driver errors cause over 90 percent of the Uber crashes in New Jersey. Defective products, usually defective tires, cause most of the rest of them.

If a defective product substantially causes an Uber crash, the product manufacturer could be legally responsible for damages as well. A Passaic County personal injury lawyer usually doesn’t have to prove negligence in these cases, because the strict liability rule usually applies. More on that below.

Financial Responsibility

Uber accident victims are entitled to compensation for their economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Who pays these damages? We’re glad you asked.

Respondeat Superior

Many times, employers can prevent car crashes from happening. For instance, Uber could kick aggressive drivers off the platform. It’s rather easy to track vehicle speed and other operational data, such as engine RPM and steering angle. But Uber refuses to take this simple step. As a result, when Uber drivers cause crashes, the company is often financially responsible for the aforementioned damages.

In New Jersey, respondeat superior (let the master answer), one of the most common vicarious liability theories, has two basic elements.

First, the tortfeasor must be an employee. Uber drivers may be non-employees, such as independent contractors, for financial purposes. But these drivers are employees for negligence purposes. If a group, like Uber, controls any aspects of an individual’s behavior, that individual is an employee for negligence purposes. Uber dictates information like pickup and dropoff location.

Second, the crash must have occurred within the course and scope of employment. Uber drivers carrying passengers are obviously working within the scope of employment. Deadheading drivers waiting for fares are also working within the scope of employment, even though they aren’t carrying passengers. If the company benefits in any way, perhaps by the free advertising in a driver’s window, the act is within the course of employment.

Strict Liability

One negligent driver might injure or kill one or two people. But one defective product might injure or kill hundreds or thousands of people. Therefore, a negligence standard doesn’t sufficiently protect people from the hazards of unsafe tires and other defective products.

As a result, the law imposes a higher standard, which is strict liability. Companies that recklessly sell defective products are liable for damages as a matter of law.

Frequently, manufacturers know that their products are defective, yet they do nothing to correct the problem. The 1970s Ford Pinto saga is the classic example, which alas has been repeated over and over.

In the mid 1970s, when gasoline prices first began rising, many Americans wanted small, cheap, fuel-efficient cars. The Pinto was Ford’s major foray into this market. Then-chairman Lee Iaccoca instructed engineers to build a car that followed his 2K Rule (didn’t weigh more than 2,000 pounds and didn’t cost more than $2,000).

To conserve weight and lower the cost, engineers placed the unprotected gas tank behind the rear axle. As a result, the gas tank often ruptured and exploded even in relatively low-speed rear-end collisions.

Ford executives determined that paying lawsuit settlements was cheaper than making the Pinto safe. When companies crassly place profits before people, the law imposes strict liability for damages.

Work With an Aggressive Lawyer

Injury victims are entitled to significant compensation. For a free consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer in Newark, contact CourtLaw. We do not charge upfront legal fees in these matters.