Uber can’t dodge lawsuit by calling driver an independent contractor

Uber asked the trial court to toss the claims against it, arguing it could not be blamed because the driver was not its employee. A Queens judge agreed and dismissed the case against the Uber entities in December 2024. 

The appeals court took a different view. Under a rule called respondeat superior, an employer can be liable for a worker’s on-the-job mistakes – but that rule generally does not reach independent contractors. Telling the two apart, the court noted, “is usually a factual issue for the jury.” 

Uber, the court held, “failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law,” because it “did not eliminate all triable issues of fact” about whether the driver was an independent contractor. So the claim against the company goes forward to trial. 

The court was blunter about the driver. A rear-end hit on a stopped car points to negligence unless the driver has a solid explanation. This driver blamed brake failure. The court called that a “vague and conclusory assertion” and said he offered no proof that reasonable care had been taken to keep the brakes working. It granted the motorist summary judgment on liability against the driver and the two taxi companies said to own the vehicle. 

For HR leaders, the takeaway is classification risk. A contractor label is not a shield a business can raise on its own word. When the facts are in dispute, the question goes to a jury – and the burden sits with the employer to clear it.