Key facts
- Uber was ordered to pay $40 million to the parents of Emily Normandin-Parker.
- Normandin-Parker died after being ejected from an Uber by the driver on a California freeway.
- An arbitrator found Uber vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
- The arbitrator rejected Uber's argument that it is solely a technology platform.
- Uber drivers are classified as independent contractors in California under Prop 22.
- Uber stated it disagreed with the arbitrator's ruling.
An arbitrator has ordered Uber to pay $40 million to the parents of a 23-year-old woman who died after being ejected from a driver's car on a California freeway. The ruling, made public through arbitration documents released by the family's attorney, found the ride-share company vicariously liable for the driver's negligence.
In August 2023, Emily Normandin-Parker and a friend hailed an Uber after a night out. The driver pulled over on the 73 freeway after Normandin-Parker vomited in the vehicle. While the driver and Normandin-Parker's friend argued over a cleaning fee, Normandin-Parker exited the car and was struck by an oncoming vehicle.
Uber argued it is merely a technology company connecting riders with independent contractors, a classification supported by California's Prop 22. However, arbitrator Richard A Stone rejected this argument, stating Uber should be treated as a common carrier and thus held responsible for the actions of its drivers. Stone asserted that Prop 22 does not shield Uber from vicarious liability for driver torts.
An Uber spokesperson, Gabriela Condarco-Quesada, stated that while the company respects the arbitration process, they believe the arbitrator was incorrect in holding Uber legally responsible. The company extended condolences to the family and noted ongoing safety enhancements. The family also revealed that Uber had previously proposed a settlement with a $10 million penalty for discussing the accident, which they rejected. Uber stated they did not pursue confidentiality in this case.
The arbitrator's ruling is not binding on other cases but is part of Uber's broader legal strategy to be recognized as a marketplace rather than an employer responsible for driver actions.