Can You Sue Uber or Lyft for Negligent Hiring? | Gosuits

• Can you sue Uber or Lyft for negligent hiring?
• What is negligent hiring vs. negligent retention in rideshare cases?
• What safety and screening rules apply to Uber and Lyft in Texas, California, and Illinois?
• How is vicarious liability different from negligent hiring against a rideshare company?
• What insurance applies after an Uber or Lyft crash, and when does UM/UIM coverage apply?
• What evidence helps prove a rideshare negligent hiring or retention case?
• Who can you sue in a rideshare negligent hiring case, and what defenses will be raised?
• What damages can you seek, and when are punitive damages possible?
• What are the statutes of limitations for rideshare injury lawsuits in TX, CA, and IL?
• Will Uber or Lyft force arbitration of negligent hiring claims?
• What practical steps should you take after a rideshare crash with a driver who had prior violations?
• How do local considerations in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, and statewide areas affect your case?
• How Gosuits can help with a negligent hiring claim against Uber or Lyft
• Sources and further reading

Can you sue Uber or Lyft for negligent hiring?

Yes, you can sue a rideshare company like Uber or Lyft for negligent hiring or negligent retention if you can show the company failed to use reasonable care in screening or keeping a driver who posed a foreseeable risk of harm. These claims are “direct negligence” claims against the company, separate from claims against the driver. Whether you are a passenger, a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or an occupant of another vehicle, the key questions are what the company knew or should have known about the driver and whether better screening or supervision would likely have prevented the crash.

Negligent hiring and retention claims are recognized across U.S. jurisdictions and commonly used in cases where a company hires or keeps a driver with red flags like prior DUIs, serious moving violations, license suspensions, violent felonies, or listed sex offenses. Reputable legal sources describe negligent hiring as a claim that a company failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting an employee or agent for a job involving risk to others (LII Wex: Negligent Hiring), and negligent retention as keeping someone whose unfitness became known or should have become known over time (LII Wex: Negligent Retention).

What is negligent hiring vs. negligent retention in rideshare cases?

Negligent hiring occurs when a company fails to use reasonable care during screening before allowing a driver to access the app or transport riders. Examples may include allowing a driver to drive despite:

• Recent serious driving offenses such as DUI/DWI, hit-and-run, reckless driving, or license suspensions.
• Disqualifying criminal history, such as violent felonies or sexual offenses that should have been detected with a proper background check.
• Identity or license problems, like a suspended, revoked, or fraudulent license.

Courts and legal commentators have long recognized that negligent hiring claims exist even where a company uses independent contractors, because the duty arises from the company’s own conduct in selecting a person to perform work that can endanger the public (LII Wex).

What does negligent retention or supervision mean for Uber and Lyft?

Negligent retention or supervision occurs when a rideshare platform allows a driver to keep operating despite learning or having reason to learn of new red flags, for example:

• Post-hire violations like a new DUI/DWI, reckless driving, or multiple moving violations while driving riders.
• Verified rider complaints indicating dangerous driving or boundary violations.
• Updated criminal records showing new disqualifying offenses.

Liability can be based on failing to remove, suspend, or restrict the driver after warning signs emerged (LII Wex).

How do you prove negligent hiring or retention in a rideshare injury case?

Generally, you must show the rideshare company owed you a duty, breached that duty by failing to use reasonable care in screening or ongoing monitoring, and that this failure caused your injury. Evidence can include public records, motor vehicle records, background check results, company policies and audits, driver deactivation criteria, rider complaints, telematics data, and dispatch records. The specific proof varies by state law and the facts of the crash.

What safety and screening rules apply to Uber and Lyft in Texas, California, and Illinois?

What baseline safety rules govern rideshare drivers in California?

California’s Transportation Network Company (TNC) statutes require:

• Background checks and driver eligibility, including review of criminal history and motor vehicle records with disqualifications for certain offenses (Cal. Pub. Util. Code §§ 5430–5445.2).
• Insurance requirements while a driver is logged in and while transporting a passenger, including higher limits during trips (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5433).

The California Public Utilities Commission regulates TNCs and details safety compliance for permits, driver checks, and reporting obligations (California PUC TNC Information).

What rules apply to Uber and Lyft driver screening in Texas?

Texas law regulates TNCs statewide. Key provisions include:

• Mandatory criminal history and driving record checks with specific disqualifications, such as certain violent or sexual offenses and some recent driving crimes (Tex. Occ. Code ch. 2402, see § 2402.107).
• Insurance requirements that vary by “period” (app off, app on without passenger, and during a trip), including higher limits during trips (Tex. Ins. Code ch. 1954).

What are Illinois TNP screening and insurance requirements?

Illinois’ Transportation Network Providers Act sets statewide rules:

• Driver background checks and disqualifications for certain criminal and driving histories (625 ILCS 57, see § 57/20).
• Tiered insurance coverage with high primary limits while a ride is in progress (625 ILCS 57, see § 57/40).

How do background check failures support negligent hiring claims?

If a statute or regulation required screening that would have revealed a disqualifying offense, and the company’s process failed, that can support breach of duty. For example, if a California TNC allowed a driver with a recent DUI or certain violent felonies to transport riders despite statutory prohibitions, a plaintiff can argue negligent hiring or retention based on noncompliance with California TNC statutes and related CPUC rules. Similar arguments arise under Texas Occupations Code chapter 2402 and Illinois 625 ILCS 57.

REQUEST NOW

How is vicarious liability different from negligent hiring against a rideshare company?

Vicarious liability, often described by the doctrine of respondeat superior, holds an employer responsible for an employee’s negligence committed within the scope of employment (LII Wex: Respondeat Superior). Rideshare companies typically classify drivers as independent contractors, and many jurisdictions limit vicarious liability for independent contractors. That is why negligent hiring and negligent retention are vital, because they are claims against the company’s own conduct, not derivative of the driver’s employment status.

Can a rideshare company be liable even if the driver is an independent contractor?

Yes. Courts and legal authorities recognize negligent hiring and retention as direct negligence claims that can apply even when the underlying tortfeasor is an independent contractor (LII Wex). In short, the company’s duty to use reasonable care in screening is distinct from the employment relationship.

Are there other direct liability theories beyond negligent hiring?

Yes, plaintiffs may also plead negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, negligent failure to warn, and negligent misrepresentation (for example, overstating safety screening in public statements). The viability of each depends on state law and the facts.

What insurance applies after an Uber or Lyft crash, and when does UM/UIM coverage apply?

Most states define coverage based on whether the driver is:

• Offline (Period 0): Personal auto policy applies.
• App on, no passenger (Period 1): Contingent or lower-limit TNC coverage may apply in addition to the driver’s policy.
• En route or carrying a passenger (Periods 2–3): Higher primary TNC coverage, typically up to $1,000,000 for liability.

California codifies minimum coverage during trips and while the app is on (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5433). Texas similarly regulates TNC insurance coverage and minimum limits by period (Tex. Ins. Code ch. 1954). Illinois requires primary commercial liability coverage during trips and specifies contingent coverage when the app is on but no passenger is present (625 ILCS 57/40).

When does UM/UIM coverage apply in rideshare cases?

Uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage can help when the at-fault driver has insufficient insurance, in hit-and-run incidents, or where liability is disputed. California law includes specific UM/UIM requirements for TNCs during trips (Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 5433). Texas and Illinois laws set liability minimums and may involve UM/UIM depending on policy terms and state mandates (Tex. Ins. Code ch. 1954; 625 ILCS 57). Evaluating all potential coverage layers (driver’s policy, TNC policy, and your own UM/UIM) is crucial.

What evidence helps prove a rideshare negligent hiring or retention case?

• Driver background check results: Criminal history, motor vehicle records, license status, and any disqualifying offenses under state law.
• Company screening and monitoring policies: Written procedures, compliance audits, and actual practices for verification, deactivation, and rechecks.
• Incident and complaint histories: Rider reports, safety tickets, prior collisions, and any internal investigations.
• Trip and telematics data: Speeding, hard braking, distracted driving indicators, and GPS traces showing the trip context.
• Law enforcement records: Crash reports, citations, and chemical test results when applicable.
• Third-party records: Court records verifying previous convictions or pending charges, accessible in state databases or through court systems.

How do you obtain these records?

In litigation, plaintiffs can use subpoenas, depositions, requests for production, and third-party records requests to assemble the full picture. Courts have rules governing civil discovery process at federal and state levels (U.S. Courts: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

Who can you sue in a rideshare negligent hiring case, and what defenses will be raised?

• The rideshare driver for negligent operation and statutory violations.
• Uber or Lyft for negligent hiring, negligent retention, and potentially misrepresentation or failure to warn.
• Third parties such as other at-fault drivers, vehicle owners, or manufacturers (in appropriate cases).

What defenses do Uber and Lyft commonly raise?

• Independent contractor status: Arguing no vicarious liability. Plaintiffs respond by pursuing direct negligence claims and statutory noncompliance.
• Compliance with statutes: Asserting they followed all background check and insurance laws, which, if proven, can complicate negligent hiring claims but does not necessarily foreclose liability if screening was still unreasonable under the circumstances.
• Causation defenses: Claiming prior violations were not causally connected to this crash.
• Comparative fault: Alleging that another driver or even the plaintiff contributed to the collision.
• Arbitration clauses: Attempting to force arbitration for riders or drivers based on app terms.

What damages can you seek, and when are punitive damages possible?

Injury victims may seek economic damages (medical expenses, lost income, rehabilitation, property damage) and non-economic damages (pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment). The specific categories and any caps vary by state law. Evidence such as medical records, wage records, and expert evaluations supports these claims.

When are punitive damages available in Texas, California, and Illinois?

• Texas: Punitive damages (called exemplary damages) require clear and convincing proof of fraud, malice, or gross negligence, and are subject to statutory limits (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 41.003, 41.008).
• California: Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294).
• Illinois: Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct showing an evil motive or reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm. The Illinois Supreme Court describes the standard as more than negligence (Slovinski v. Elliot, 237 Ill. 2d 51 (2009)).

In negligent hiring or retention cases, punitive damages are uncommon but may be considered if there is proof of truly egregious disregard for safety, such as knowingly allowing a driver with recent violent felonies or repeated DUIs to continue carrying passengers.

What are the statutes of limitations for rideshare injury lawsuits in TX, CA, and IL?

• Texas: Two years for personal injury claims, measured from the date of the injury (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003).
• California: Two years for injury to a person (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
• Illinois: Two years for personal injury (735 ILCS 5/13-202).

Shorter or different deadlines can apply in claims against public entities, for minors, or where discovery rules or tolling are involved. Filing promptly protects your rights.

Will Uber or Lyft force arbitration of negligent hiring claims?

Yes, Uber and Lyft terms commonly include arbitration agreements and class action waivers. Courts have enforced these agreements in many contexts, especially when clearly presented and accepted. For example, a published decision in the Ninth Circuit addressed enforcement of Uber’s arbitration provisions (Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016)).

Arbitration issues are nuanced. Whether a specific injured person is bound can depend on their relationship to the app, assent to the terms, and the claim’s nature. Non-users harmed by a rideshare driver (e.g., pedestrians, other motorists) often are not signatories and may not be bound, but courts analyze these questions case by case.

What practical steps should you take after a rideshare crash with a driver who had prior violations?

• Call 911 and seek medical care: Safety first. Request a police report and keep all medical records.
• Document everything: Photos of vehicles, road conditions, ride screenshots, driver profile, license plate, and insurance info.
• Preserve the app data: Save ride receipts, trip IDs, and in-app messages. Take timestamped screenshots.
• Collect witness info: Names, phone numbers, and any video footage from bystanders or nearby businesses.
• Notify insurers: Report claims to the rideshare insurer and your own carrier, especially for UM/UIM.
• Get legal help promptly: These cases involve multiple insurers, app data, and statutory rules. Early counsel can secure evidence and meet deadlines.

How do local considerations in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, and statewide areas affect your case?

Texas uses uniform statewide TNC rules, so negligent hiring claims focus on state statutes (Occ. Code ch. 2402) and insurance scheme (Ins. Code ch. 1954). Urban areas such as Houston, Dallas, and Austin tend to have more available video evidence from traffic cameras and private businesses, which can help reconstruct collisions and corroborate negligent retention claims where prior rider complaints exist. Courts in Bexar County (San Antonio), Tarrant County (Fort Worth), and El Paso County follow the same statutes, but local court rules and jury pools can affect litigation timelines and settlement dynamics.

What about California hubs like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Orange County, and Riverside?

California’s CPUC oversight and Public Utilities Code sections 5430–5445.2 provide detailed standards. In Los Angeles and the Bay Area, substantial public transit data and dense camera coverage may aid investigations. Allegations that a driver with disqualifying criminal history or recent DUIs slipped through screening can support negligent hiring claims if connected to the crash. Courts in San Diego, Santa Clara (San Jose), Sacramento, Alameda (Oakland), Orange, and Riverside apply the same statewide framework, with local procedures governing discovery and trial settings.

How are cases handled in Illinois cities like Chicago, Naperville, Aurora, Joliet, and Springfield?

Illinois’ 625 ILCS 57 governs TNP operations statewide. In Cook County (Chicago) and surrounding collar counties, court dockets are active, and discovery disputes can be frequent where plaintiffs seek internal safety data. Showing violations of the TNP Act’s screening or insurance requirements can bolster a negligent hiring theory if causally related to the incident.

REQUEST NOW

What about “near me” cases outside major metros?

Rideshare availability in suburban and rural areas can raise unique evidence issues, like fewer cameras or witnesses. Even so, the same state statutes apply, and trip data, crash reports, and mobile device records often fill the gaps.

Are there relevant safety statistics to consider?

Nationally, motor vehicle crashes remain a leading source of serious injury and fatalities. While research on ridehailing’s net effect is mixed, peer-reviewed and academic work has explored associations between ridehailing and traffic outcomes. For example, one study in the American Journal of Epidemiology analyzed ridehailing’s relationship with traffic fatalities across U.S. cities (AJE ridehailing fatalities study, Google Scholar). Statistics on overall roadway safety are available from federal sources like NHTSA and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (U.S. DOT Safety). These broader datasets help contextualize individual cases but do not by themselves prove negligent hiring in a specific crash.

How Gosuits can help with a negligent hiring claim against Uber or Lyft

If you were hurt by an Uber or Lyft driver with prior violations, it is natural to feel frustrated and overwhelmed. Negligent hiring and retention cases turn on details that are often inside the rideshare company’s systems. We focus on collecting evidence promptly, analyzing compliance with state screening rules, and identifying every insurance layer that could apply.

What availability and communication do we offer?

• Available 24/7: You can reach us any time for a free consultation. We connect you with an attorney or dedicated staff member immediately so urgent steps, like preserving trip data, are not missed.
• Multilingual support: We provide multilingual customer service. Spanish and Farsi speakers are available 24/7, and we can accommodate many other languages upon request.

What are our fee policies and cost transparency?

• No win, No Attorney Fees: Learn about our approach at No win, No Attorney Fees. We carry case costs through the process and discuss reimbursement at resolution, so you can focus on recovery.
• No Hidden Administrative Fees: We make billing and costs easy to understand and provide written terms at the outset.

How do our tools and case workflow help your claim?

• Proprietary personal injury software: We built secure, in-house software to streamline investigations, demand preparation, negotiations, and litigation. This helps us identify gaps in background screening, track key deadlines, and organize complex evidence like telematics and app data. We are a law firm that uses technology to stay ahead of insurer tactics.
• Structured case milestones: From the first call, we open a timeline for medical documentation, insurer notifications, evidence preservation letters, and, when needed, filing suit and managing discovery efficiently.

What is our experience and track record?

• 30 years of combined experience: Our attorneys have handled thousands of insurance negotiations and lawsuits, including rideshare and commercial transportation cases.
• Over 1,000 litigated cases: We have resolved more than a thousand cases through settlement and verdicts, with results published on our website: prior cases.
• Complex litigation readiness: In severe injury matters (including product liability, 18-wheeler collisions, brain and spinal injuries), we hire qualified experts within the state to establish liability and damages when necessary.
• Multi-state litigation: We litigate severe injury and complex cases in Texas, California, and Illinois, navigating the differences among TNC statutes and discovery rules.
• Awards:

• #1 Settlements and verdicts across multiple U.S. counties, according to TopVerdict.
• Top 100 Settlement in Texas.
• Sean Chalaki recognized as Top 40 under 40 by National Trial Lawyers.
• Recognized by Best Lawyers in 2023, 2024, and 2025.
• Selected to Super Lawyers since 2021.

How are we different from volume firms?

• Focused caseloads: We are not a volume firm. We emphasize careful case building, early liability analysis, and tailored strategy for each client.
• Direct access: Our attorneys communicate regularly with clients about case status, settlement posture, and next steps, so you are never left guessing.

Where are we available and how can we help immediately?

• Statewide availability in TX, CA, and IL: We promptly route your case to our nearest staffed location, covering major metros and surrounding areas in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, El Paso), California (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, Orange County, Riverside), and Illinois (Chicago, Naperville, Aurora, Joliet, Springfield).
• Immediate action: On contact, we initiate evidence preservation with the rideshare company and insurers, help coordinate medical care, and begin investigating background check compliance and prior violations connected to your crash.

Your situation may feel complex, but together we can bring clarity. Our team is ready 24/7 to discuss what happened, outline potential claims, and begin protecting your interests.

Sources and further reading

• Cornell Law School LII – Negligent Hiring
• Cornell Law School LII – Negligent Retention
• Cornell Law School LII – Respondeat Superior
• Cal. Public Utilities Code §§ 5430–5445.2 (TNC provisions)
• Cal. Public Utilities Code § 5433 (TNC insurance)
• California Public Utilities Commission – TNC Information
• Texas Occupations Code ch. 2402 (Transportation Network Companies)
• Texas Insurance Code ch. 1954 (TNC Insurance)
• 625 ILCS 57 (Transportation Network Providers Act)
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003 (Limitations)
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (Limitations)
• 735 ILCS 5/13-202 (Limitations)
• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 41 (Exemplary Damages)
• Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (Punitive Damages)
• Slovinski v. Elliot, 237 Ill. 2d 51 (2009) – punitive damages standard (Google Scholar)
• Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2016) – arbitration (CourtListener)
• U.S. Courts – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
• Ridehailing and traffic fatalities – academic research (Google Scholar)