The first "bellwether" verdict in Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits delivered: $140 million claimed, $8.5 million awarded

　　A U.S. federal jury on Thursday ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million in damages, finding in favor of a woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. This verdict could impact thousands of similar lawsuits against the ride-hailing company.

　　The case was brought by plaintiff Jaylynn Dean and marks the first trial among more than 3,000 similar lawsuits against Uber, known as a "bellwether" trial. These cases have been consolidated in U.S. federal court. The purpose of bellwether trials is to test legal theories and help assess possible settlement amounts.

　　The jury determined that the driver was an employee of Uber, and therefore the company was responsible for his actions. The jury awarded Dean $8.5 million in compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages. Dean’s attorneys had sought over $140 million in damages.

　　An Uber spokesperson stated in a statement that the jury had dismissed Dean's other allegations, namely that the company was negligent or had defective safety systems, and added that the company plans to appeal. “This verdict affirms Uber's responsible conduct and its substantial investments in passenger safety,” the spokesperson said.

　　In the lawsuit, Dean stated that she was intoxicated at the time and had hired an Uber to travel from her boyfriend’s house to a hotel. The driver persistently asked her inappropriate questions during the ride and later stopped the car and sexually assaulted her.

　　Dean, a resident of Oklahoma, sued Uber in 2023 about a month after being assaulted in Arizona. She claimed that Uber was aware of multiple sexual assault cases by its drivers but failed to take even basic measures to ensure passenger safety. Such allegations have long plagued Uber, frequently making headlines and drawing close attention from U.S. lawmakers.

　　Uber has faced numerous safety controversies, including accusations of inadequate driver screening, and critics argue that the company’s corporate culture prioritizes growth over passenger protection. The company has argued that it should not be held liable for criminal acts committed by drivers using its platform and stated that its background checks and disclosures on assault incidents are sufficiently thorough.

　　The company maintains that its drivers are independent contractors rather than employees, and that regardless of their status, the company cannot be held responsible for acts outside the reasonable scope of their duties.

Editor: Yu Jian SF069