In the case of Fusco
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 17 - 00036 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2018 Goldberg, J.)(Mem. Op.), the court granted Uber’s
Motion for Summary Judgment as to negligent hiring, retention and supervision
claims in a case of an Uber driver who allegedly attacked the Plaintiff
customer.
The court granted the Motion given that there was no record
of any alleged instances of past misconduct by the offending driver.
The court noted, however, that, after the Plaintiff filed
his Complaint, news outlets in the area reported that the driver involved in
the incident had a prior criminal conviction.
As such, the court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint as
to these claims and deferred consideration of the driver’s past conviction
until a later date in the proceedings.
By way of background, the Plaintiff attended a party in the
University City neighborhood of Philadelphia. Given that the Plaintiff had
alcohol at the party, he contacted Uber for a ride to his home in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.
According to the Opinion, the Uber app conceals the
customer’s destination until the start of a booked trip. Accordingly, when a driver arises to pick up
the Plaintiff, he does not know the Plaintiff’s destination. The app is apparently set up in this way so
as to the prevent drivers from declining routes they deem to be less
profitable. According to the Opinion,
Uber does not allow drivers to refuse a trip after learning of a customer’s
destination.
In this matter, when the Uber driver arrived, he refused to
take the Plaintiff to his home in southern New Jersey. The Plaintiff remained seated in the car and
repeated his request to be brought home.
At that point, the driver dragged the Plaintiff out of the
car, kicked him and beat him, leaving the Plaintiff unconscious and bleeding.
The Plaintiff later filed this suit against Uber asserting a negligent hire
claim, fraud and related misrepresentation claims, and vicarious liability
claims.
The court reviewed the law requiring the Plaintiff to show
that the employer was on notice of an employee’s propensity for misconduct. As there was no such information pled in the
Complaint or otherwise found in the record, the court granted Uber’s Motion to Dismiss. However, as noted, the Plaintiff was allowed
to amend the Complaint given the recent news that had come out that the driver
in the incident had a prior criminal conviction.
Anyone wishing to review this memorandum decision may click this LINK. The companion Order can be viewed HERE
Source: “Digest of
Recent Opinion” Pennsylvania Law Weekly
(Aug. 14, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.