Plaintiffs allege Uber failed to implement adequate driver background checks, in-ride safety features (dashcams, panic buttons), and driver monitoring systems, creating foreseeable conditions for driver-on-passenger physical assault. Unlike the sexual assault MDL 3084, these claims focus specifically on physical violence, carjacking-style incidents, and non-sexual battery. Plaintiffs argue Uber prioritized rapid driver onboarding over passenger safety, using background check vendors that miss criminal history.

Defendants

Entity	Role	Note
Uber Technologies, Inc.	Platform Operator	Primary defendant — operates rideshare platform; negligent hiring and screening claims
Rasier LLC	Operating Subsidiary	Uber subsidiary that contracts with drivers — named in employment-related claims
Individual Drivers	Assailants	Named individually where criminal conduct is alleged

Litigation Timeline

2017

First Uber Safety Report discloses physical assault incidents

2019-2020

Multiple state lawsuits filed alleging negligent driver screening

2022

Coordinated filings increase — plaintiff firms building inventory

2024

JPML petition for MDL consolidation under consideration

2025-2026

Pre-MDL coordination; approximately 100 cases pending nationwide

Intelligence Signals

No signals yet. Signals populate automatically when scrapers run.

Key Facts

Status: active

Geographic Exposure

·California state courts (most active)

·New York (state court actions)

·Illinois (Chicago — high incident volume)

·Nationwide — pre-MDL coordination pending

Eligibility Criteria

✓Passenger who used Uber rideshare service
✓Experienced physical assault or battery by Uber driver during or surrounding a ride
✓Incident reported to law enforcement
✓Claims distinct from sexual assault (covered under MDL 3084)

Sources

Uber US Safety Report Uber SEC Filings CPUC Rideshare Safety Data