Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV05964, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05964, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05964 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Ohlaug v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 23SMCV05964

Hearing Date: April 24, 2024

Defendant Lyft’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff Ohlaug alleges his friend used the Lyft app to get a ride. Defendant Doe Driver exited the vehicle and assaulted plaintiff, who sues Lyft and Doe Driver. Lyft demurs to all causes of action.

Defendant Lyft’s request for judicial notice of the complaint is GRANTED, as it is a court document under Evidence Code 452(d). The court does admit the document for its truth.

Negligence

To state a claim for negligence, one must allege (1) duty, (2) breach, and (3) injuries. See, e.g., CACI 400; McIntyre v. Colonies-Pacific, LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 664, 671.

Lyft asserts plaintiff does not sufficiently allege duty because plaintiff was neither a user of the Lyft platform nor a passenger. The complaint alleges Lyft owed a duty to act because it provided transportation services to those using its app. Complaint, para. 19. Plaintiff’s friend submitted a request for a ride through the Lyft app for plaintiff. Complaint, para. 14. Plaintiff was an intended user of the ride. Plaintiff alleges Lyft was on notice of drivers’ misbehavior due to passenger complaints, police investigations surrounding drivers who were acting within their capacity as Lyft drivers, and numerous civil suits alleging harassment and assault of Lyft passengers. Complaint, para 24.

Lyft argues plaintiff does not identify steps Lyft should have taken or provide a factual basis to support allegations that Lyft’s business practices correlate to any breach. Lyft notes plaintiff concedes he had no relationship with Lyft. Lyft argues plaintiff’s conclusory allegations fail to plead causation.

Plaintiff contends Lyft’s breach in not vetting its drivers caused his assault and battery, causing physical and psychological harm. For pleading purposes, this is sufficient. See Complaint, paras. 28-29. OVERRULED.

Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention

An employer may be liable to a third person for the employer's negligence in hiring or retaining an employee if the third person can show (1) the employee is incompetent or unfit, (2) the employer had reason to believe the undue risk of harm would exist because of the employment, and (3) the harm occurs. Federico v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1207, 1213-14.

Lyft contends plaintiff has not established Doe Driver had a propensity for violence or that Lyft had actual knowledge of this.

The complaint alleges the hiring process was mainly automated, and Lyft failed to interview, check references, provide training, or advise the driver of any anti-harassment or anti-assault policies. Complaint, paras. 34-36. For pleading purposes, this is sufficient. OVERRULED.

Common Carrier

A common carrier offers to the public to carry persons. Civ. Code sec. 2168. Per Civil Code section 2100 a common carrier must use utmost care and diligence to ensure their safe carriage.

Lyft does not dispute it is a common carrier but contends the cause of action fails because the common carrier’s special duty does not apply to an individual awaiting transportation. However, the events described in the complaint allege plaintiff’s assault occurred when the driver arrived to pick up plaintiff. Complaint, para 14. The complaint alleges the driver accepted plaintiff’s friend’s Lyft request, so the driver’s arrival marked the beginning of the transportation service. For purposes of pleadings, this is sufficient. OVERRULED.

Vicarious Liability for the Assault and Battery Claim

A principal may be vicariously liable for injury committed by an act of its agent where (1) the

principal directly authorizes the act to be committed, (2) the agent commits the act in the scope of their agency and in performing service on behalf of the principal, or (3) the principal ratifies its agent's conduct after the fact by electing to adopt the agent's conduct. Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 953, 969.

Lyft argues under California law, there is no vicarious liability for personal tortious and criminal acts. Lyft argues the driver’s actions were outside the scope of the alleged employment, as the actions were several steps removed from the driver’s task of transporting riders utilizing the Lyft platform. The complaint alleges the driver parked his vehicle after arriving to pick up plaintiff and his friends, exited the vehicle and approached plaintiff prior to the assault. Complaint, para. 14. Moreover, the dispute over the scope of employment is unsuitable for a demurrer. On demurrer, the court must accept as true all the allegations in the complaint. E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315. OVERRULED.