Can you sue Uber or Lyft after a crash?
Whether you can sue Uber or Lyft depends on the legal basis for the claim, not simply on whether the app's name appeared on the trip. A negligent driver's responsibility, the availability of rideshare insurance and potential responsibility of the company are related but distinct questions. They should be investigated separately in a New Jersey case.
Identifying every supported source of responsibility helps us pursue the protection an injured person needs. I would examine the trip and the circumstances of the collision before deciding which parties should be included. Naming the largest company without a supported theory does not substitute for that work.
At the same time, a statement that the driver is an independent contractor should not end every inquiry. We need to consider the actual issue being raised and the law that governs it. The question may concern insurance rather than whether the company is legally responsible for the driver's conduct.
The driver's conduct is one part of the case
A driver can be responsible for negligent driving regardless of how the ride was arranged. We would examine the collision evidence in much the same way we would in another motor-vehicle case. The app connection adds coverage and record-preservation issues; it does not remove the need to establish what caused the crash.
A passenger may have a claim involving another motorist rather than the rideshare driver. A pedestrian or an occupant of a different vehicle may have a claim involving the rideshare driver's conduct. Those positions should be identified accurately before discussing the available policies.
The police report may help identify the drivers, but it may not establish the app status or resolve the collision sequence. We should preserve evidence that can answer the questions the report leaves open.
Insurance can respond without the company being a defendant
New Jersey law requires insurance during specified periods of transportation-network-company activity. The applicable requirements change between waiting for a request and engaging in a prearranged ride. Coverage may therefore be available through the rideshare arrangement even when the legal claim is directed primarily against the driver.
That distinction matters to an injured person who hears that the company cannot be sued and assumes there is no meaningful coverage. The insurer and the party alleged to be negligent do not always have the same name. We should identify the policy that applies to the driver during the relevant period.
The presence of required coverage does not establish a guaranteed payment. Liability, the extent of injury and policy conditions still require attention. A published limit is the beginning of a coverage discussion, not a valuation of a particular case.
A claim against the company needs its own factual basis
Potential company responsibility requires a legal theory supported by evidence. A question about the company's own conduct is different from a claim that it must answer for every action of a driver. The relevant records and legal standards will depend on the theory being considered.
We should not assume negligent screening or another company failure merely because a crash occurred. If the facts provide a basis to investigate that issue, the investigation should identify what information existed and how the alleged conduct relates to the injury.
This is also why slogans about app-based workers can be misleading. A classification used for one legal purpose does not necessarily answer every issue in a personal injury case. The complaint should reflect the applicable law and evidence, not a broad assumption about all drivers using a platform.
A separate question is where a supported claim may proceed. Uber or Lyft may invoke an arbitration provision in the account terms. An enforceable agreement can require a covered claim to proceed in arbitration rather than in court before a jury. I would review the terms actually accepted, the acceptance records, the parties, the claims covered and any available challenge before advising you about the forum.
We should not assume that every passenger, pedestrian or other motorist is bound by an account holder’s agreement. Whether a particular person or claim is subject to arbitration requires its own analysis. An arbitration provision does not, by itself, mean that there is no injury claim or insurance coverage.
App records can establish the relevant period
The precise trip status can affect coverage. Was the app off, was the driver waiting for a request or had a ride been accepted? An injured person at the scene may have no way to answer those questions. That is information we may need to obtain from the driver and the company.
Passengers should preserve receipts and trip history. Other injured people should keep any photographs or information identifying the vehicle and driver. Explain if the driver mentioned a ride or had a passenger; do not turn an observation into a conclusion about the app record.
Preservation requests may be important because electronic records and available video should be retained before routine deletion occurs. The request should identify the relevant event and information rather than assume every possible record will remain available indefinitely.
Several claims may need to be coordinated
The ordinary limitation-on-lawsuit option also has a rideshare exception. Under N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(j), the transportation network company and its driver cannot assert that limitation in an action for damages arising from a prearranged ride. The statute separately prevents its assertion against a party not receiving PIP benefits in an action arising from a prearranged ride. This rule does not establish company negligence or resolve whether an arbitration agreement governs the claim.
Medical-expense benefits may follow a different path from a bodily-injury claim. Uninsured or underinsured motorist issues can also arise when the responsible driver lacks sufficient coverage. Those questions require attention before a settlement with one carrier is finalized.
Forward notices and proposed releases to the office promptly. A document resolving one portion of the matter may affect another claim. We should review the parties being released and any notice obligations instead of assuming a partial settlement has no wider consequences.
If the crash occurred while someone was making a delivery rather than transporting a passenger, say so. Food-delivery work is not automatically governed by the same coverage arrangement as a prearranged passenger ride. The actual activity needs to be identified.
Begin with the facts, then select the claims
You do not need to know the correct defendant before contacting a lawyer. That is part of the investigation. Bring the information you have, including the trip record if you were a passenger and any insurance correspondence.
My objective is to identify the supported claims and explain how the coverage may work. A careful approach gives us a better foundation for pursuing recovery than either assuming the app guarantees payment or accepting a broad denial without examining the facts.
Sources and Further Reading
About Michael B. Fusco
Michael B. Fusco is a New Jersey personal injury attorney certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a Civil Trial Attorney. Read Mike’s biography and credentials.
Discuss Your Personal Injury Questions
If you have questions about an injury in New Jersey, I am happy to discuss what happened and the options the facts may support. You do not need to have every document or answer before contacting us. Call 732-465-8733 or contact Fusco Law for a free personal injury consultation.
General Information
This article provides general information, not legal advice for a particular situation. Laws and policy terms must be applied to the actual facts. Reading this article or contacting the firm does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.