Lyft seeks to clip consolidated sexual assault suits

The ride-hailing company took its first stab at curtailing the claims in the MDL proceeding that includes about 136 individual lawsuits.(CN) — Lyft Inc. asked a federal judge on Wednesday to dismiss part of the claims by riders who say they were sexually assaulted by drivers they were matched with through the ride-hailing company’s app.U.S. District Judge Rita Lin didn’t rule at the hearing in San Francisco on Lyft’s motion to dismiss claims in the so-called multi-district litigation, which has consolidated about 136 federal lawsuits from across the U.S. for pretrial proceedings.The judge, a Joe Biden appointee, however, didn’t seem persuaded by the company’s argument that the plaintiffs’ negligence claims under California law are barred by a 2017 decision by the state’s Public Utilities Commission that had rejected making it a requirement for ride-hailing companies to use fingerprints for background checks of drivers.“I have some skepticism about the concept that any time the PUC considers issues having to do with network-transportation companies like Lyft, and then decides not to adopt a regulation, this means that Lyft is relieved of its obligations in terms of traditional civil liability,” Lin said.And while Lyft’s attorney David Riskin argued the PUC had looked at evidence and considered public comments in deciding a fingerprint-based background check requirement wouldn’t add a demonstrably greater level of safety for passengers, the judge noted that a jury’s finding that Lyft is negligent based on the company’s actual knowledge about riders’ safety wouldn’t necessarily interfere with the PUC’s regulatory authority.An attorney for the plaintiffs said they should be entitled to tell the jury that, because Lyft doesn’t use any biometric screening for its background checks, the company has ended up checking false IDs and didn’t know whose background it was, in fact, checking.The MDL proceeding before Lin is a relative newcomer in the massive wave of litigation against the company and Uber, its larger competitor, by women who claim the ride-hailing businesses put profits before safety by not properly screening the drivers they allow on their platforms and misleadingly downplaying the dangers single women face in their advertising.Already 2,000 sexual assault cases against Lyft are pending in a consolidated California state court proceeding set up six years ago.Uber, meanwhile, is defending thousands of cases consolidated before a federal judge in San Francisco, as well as a separate consolidated state-court proceeding.“For Lyft, sexual assault and harassment in its vehicles is the price of doing business,” the plaintiffs claim in their master complaint. “When women are assaulted on its platform, Lyft does not take responsibility but instead blames its drivers and even the passengers themselves. As if it were the passengers’ responsibility to avoid dangerous Lyft drivers, rather than Lyft’s responsibility to provide the safe ride it promised.”Lyft also asked Lin to dismiss the plaintiffs’ product liability claims under California law because, the company argues, its app isn’t a product. In this regard, Lyft points to decisions in the consolidated sexual assault cases in California state courts where judges have sided with both Uber and Lyft on this issue.However, as the plaintiffs pointed out, the federal judge overseeing the Uber MDL allowed product liability claims to go forward because Uber provides a service but also exercises total control over the product, the Uber app.“Importantly, the court considered Uber’s reliance on state trial-court decisions holding that the Uber app was not a product and nevertheless concluded that under the restatement and the pleaded functionality, Uber’s app constitutes a product for strict liability,” the plaintiffs argued in their opposition to Lyft’s motion to dismiss.Earlier this year, in a bellwether federal trial, a jury in Phoenix found Uber liable for the sexual assault of a passenger by her Uber driver in Arizona and awarded the plaintiff $8.5 million in compensatory damages.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads