Court Dismisses Claims of Negligent Hiring and Supervision, as well as Negligent Entrustment, Against Lyft

In the case of Henry v. Marcelin, No. 24-1891 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2024 Arteaga, J.), a judge in the Eastern District Federal Court of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant rideshare company’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle collision.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a passenger that was involved in a motor vehicle accident that involved a rideshare vehicle.

Among her claims, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, rideshare company (Lyft), was responsible on theories of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. The Defendant rideshare company sought a partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision, along with a claim for negligent entrustment, failed to state a claim within relief could be granted.

The court granted the rideshare defendant’s motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to identify any past misconduct by the driver of the rideshare vehicle that would have put a reasonable employer on notice of an employee’s propensity for dangerous activities. The court also noted that there were no allegations offered by the Plaintiff to support an inference that the Defendant rideshare company knew that its driver was allegedly unqualified.

The court declined to recognize a genuine duty to investigate on the rideshare company’s part.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent hiring and related claims. 

The court also dismissed the claims for negligent entrustment. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave granted to the Plaintiff to amend on the chance that the Plaintiff might be able to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source “Digest of Recent Opinions.” www.Law.com (Pennsylvania Law Weekly) (Oct. 11, 2024).

Motion To Dismiss Personal Injury Claims Against Lyft Denied

In the case of Doe v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03990-KSM (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2024 Marston, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss filed by a transportation network company, Lyft, Inc., and its former driver in connection with an alleged sexual assault committed by the driver.  The court granted the Motion to Dismiss but allowed the Plaintiff the right to amend.  

In part, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to allege an actionable claim for negligent supervision where she alleged, for the first time in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that its driver was the subject of four prior passenger complaints.  The court allowed the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint to more specifically plead the negligent supervision claim.  

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim failed for two reasons. First, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege that the Defendant undertook to protect her from its ride share driver.  While the Plaintiff seemed to link the Defendant’s provision of ride share services with a duty to protect her from harm as a rider, the Plaintiff did not allege a “specific undertaking” by the Defendant in that regard.  

Additionally, the court found that, even if the Defendant allegedly undertook a duty to protect the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent undertaking because she asserted only that the Defendant should have provided additional safety features on its platform, not that it implemented its existing scheme negligently.  

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim.  However, this claim was dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to file an Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff’s separate negligent misrepresentation claim broadly alleged that the Defendant falsely advertised itself as a safe rideshare option.  The court dismissed this part of the claim after finding that, to the extent the Plaintiff did allegedly identify actionable statements by the Defendant in its marketing materials, the Plaintiff still failed to plead facts suggesting that these statements were false and, as such, the Plaintiff had not stated a valid claim of negligent misrepresentation.  Although the court dismissed this claim as well, the Plaintiff was again allowed an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, without prejudice.  The court allowed the Plaintiff the opportunity to replead those allegations should she have facts to support the same. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 9, 2024). 

Source of above image: Photo by Thought Catalog on www.unsplash.com.