Appeals Court Rules Uber Had Duty to Ensure Safety of Driver Killed by Passengers

An Uber logo is shown on a rideshare vehicle in Los Angeles on Aug. 20, 2020. Mike Blake/Reuters

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that Uber had a duty to use “reasonable care” when pairing riders with a Washington driver who was killed by two passengers in a failed carjacking attempt.

The case stems from the death of Cherno Ceesay, who was fatally stabbed by Devin Kekoa Wade and Olivia Breanna-Lennon Bebic after accepting their ride request on the Uber app in December 2020.

According to a court filing, the pair allegedly used a fake name to create an Uber account and request a ride. After Ceesay picked them up, they stabbed him in the neck, killing him, and his car crashed into a tree.

Police said that the pair attempted to steal Ceesay’s car. Wade was sentenced to 18 years and four months in prison and 36 months in community custody, while Bebic received a sentence of nine years and six months for the murder.

Ceesay’s estate filed a lawsuit against Uber in 2021, arguing that the company was aware its drivers were at high risk of violent assault by passengers but “abdicated its duty” to protect them from that danger.

In 2022, a district court ruled that there was “no special relationship” between Uber and Ceesay that would give rise to a duty of care.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 30 disagreed with the district court’s ruling, stating that under Washington state law, a rideshare company “owes a duty to its drivers to use reasonable care in matching them with riders.”

In a 2–1 decision, the court said the relationship between a rideshare company and its drivers is “closely analogous to the relationship between employer and employee and the relationship between contractor and subcontractor.”

The ruling stated that Ceesay’s estate provided “sufficient undisputed evidence” showing that Uber maintained “a requisite level of control” in matching drivers with riders. It stated that Uber did not disclose to Ceesay about riders with suspicious profiles before he accepted their ride request.

“Uber alone controlled the verification methods of drivers and riders, what information to make available to each respective party, and consistently represented to drivers that it took their safety into consideration,” it stated.

“Ceesay relied entirely on Uber to match him with riders, and he was not given any meaningful information about the rider other than their location,” the ruling added.

In its lawsuit, Ceesay estate argued that Uber penalized drivers for declining or canceling rides and provided almost no information about passengers and trip details until after the ride request is accepted.

An Uber spokesperson told The Epoch Times that the company intends to petition for a review before the full panel of the Ninth Circuit.

“We are confident in our position and committed to pursuing this matter further,” the spokesperson said in an email.