## Facts

- Erik Search used Uber’s smartphone app to request a ride; driver Yohannes Deresse accepted.
- After Search and companions entered the vehicle, they allegedly became alarmed by Deresse’s erratic behavior, exited, and walked away.
- Deresse allegedly followed Search and stabbed him with a knife, causing serious injuries.
- Search alleged Uber marketed drivers as “private,” “rigorously screened,” and “monitored,” and represented riders could request a driver “thoroughly vetted for safety.”
- Search alleged Uber controlled key aspects of drivers’ work (including fares, payments, and certain conduct) and could terminate drivers’ platform access.
- Search sued Uber under theories of respondeat superior, apparent/ostensible agency, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and violations of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) based on alleged misleading safety representations.
- The case was removed to federal court on diversity jurisdiction; Uber moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged an employer–employee relationship sufficient to support vicarious liability under respondeat superior.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged apparent/ostensible agency based on Uber’s public representations and the rider’s reliance, and whether a contractual disclaimer defeated that theory at the pleading stage.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged negligent hiring, training, or supervision under D.C. law.
4. Whether the complaint stated a CPPA claim based on allegedly deceptive safety and screening representations.
5. Whether “gross negligence” and “punitive damages” could proceed as standalone causes of action.

## Decision

- Uber’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
- The court denied dismissal of vicarious-liability claims under respondeat superior and apparent/ostensible agency.
- The court dismissed negligent hiring, training, and supervision claims for insufficient factual allegations of what Uber knew or should have known about the driver or specific failures in its practices.
- The court denied dismissal of the CPPA claim, finding plausible allegations that Uber’s safety-related representations could mislead a reasonable consumer.
- The court dismissed separate counts labeled gross negligence and punitive damages as not independent causes of action under D.C. law.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and generally does not resolve fact disputes or credit extra-pleading characterizations of the parties’ relationship.
- Under D.C. law, respondeat superior turns largely on the putative employer’s right to control the manner and means of the work; allegations of fare/payment control, imposed standards, and termination power can plausibly support an employment relationship at the pleading stage.
- Apparent/ostensible agency under D.C. law requires a principal’s holding out, the plaintiff’s reasonable reliance, and a detrimental change of position; marketing and user-facing safety statements can satisfy these elements when plausibly alleged.
- Contractual language disclaiming agency does not necessarily defeat apparent-agency allegations at the pleading stage where reliance, assent/notice, and potentially contrary public representations present fact questions.
- Negligent hiring, training, and supervision require nonconclusory allegations that the employer knew or should have known of an employee’s dangerous propensities or incompetence and failed to use reasonable care.
- The CPPA reaches deceptive or misleading representations in consumer transactions; plausibly alleged safety and screening misstatements can state a claim.
- Gross negligence is a standard of conduct and punitive damages are a remedy; neither is typically a standalone claim under D.C. law.

## Conclusion

The court allowed claims premised on Uber’s potential vicarious liability and alleged consumer deception to proceed past the pleading stage, while dismissing insufficiently supported direct-negligence allegations and eliminating standalone counts for gross negligence and punitive damages.


Search v. Uber Techs., Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015)