Jury Finds Uber Failed To Protect Passengers, But Is Not Liable for Sexual Assault

California state court verdict comes as lawyers continue to prepare the first of several thousand Uber sexual assault lawsuits pending in the federal court system to go before a jury in January 2026.

A California jury has found that Uber was negligent in failing to protect a woman from sexual assault by one of its drivers, but concluded that the company’s negligence did not substantially contribute to the attack, finding that the company should not be held liable for damages.

The case involved a woman identified as Jessica C., who was 18 when she said an Uber driver assaulted her in December 2019, while she was traveling home from college for the holidays. 

After a three-week trial in San Francisco Superior Court, jurors delivered a split verdict, finding Uber negligent but not legally responsible. As the first Uber sexual assault lawsuit to reach a jury, the trial was closely watched as an early test of how evidence and testimony may be received in thousands of similar Uber sexual assault claims currently pending.

The rideshare giant currently faces more than 2,500 Uber sexual assault lawsuits filed in federal court, alongside another 700 claims in California state court. 

Filed mostly by women, the lawsuits accuse Uber of putting profits over safety by failing to protect passengers from harassment, assaults and rapes through inadequate background checks, poor driver training and the lack of security measures, such as in-car cameras or gender-based driver options.

The mixed outcome in Jessica C.’s case leaves uncertainty over how juries will respond in the trials ahead, which are likely to revisit many of the same arguments about Uber’s responsibility for passenger safety.

Following the presentation of evidence and testimony, the jury issued its verdict on Tuesday after deliberating for 17 hours over three days. Jurors unanimously agreed that Uber was negligent in protecting passengers, yet split 8–3 on whether that negligence was a substantial factor in the assault, with the majority siding in favor of the company.

Uber argued during the trial that the driver had passed a standard background check and carried a 96% approval rating from riders, saying it had met its safety obligations. 

Plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that Uber should be held to the same “common carrier” standard that applies to buses, trains and airlines, which are legally required to take the highest degree of care to ensure passenger safety. They argued that Uber failed to meet that standard by not implementing stronger safeguards, such as in-car cameras or more thorough driver vetting.

Attorneys also warned that the verdict could discourage survivors of assault from coming forward, since a finding of negligence without liability may be seen as a hollow victory. 

The majority of the litigation is still working toward a resolution in federal court, where the cases have been centralized for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is overseeing the process.

The first federal Uber passenger sexual assault lawsuit is scheduled to go before a jury on January 7, involving claims by Jaylynn Dean, who says she was raped by an Uber driver in Arizona in November 2023. It is expected that this trial will likely revisit the same questions about Uber’s duty of care and responsibility for passenger safety.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.