Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that Lyft, Inc., may be held liable under a products liability theory to a rideshare customer who was sexually assaulted.

Doe used the Lyft app to call for a ride. The vehicle’s driver matched the picture on the Lyft account; however, unbeknownst to Doe, the driver allegedly was using a fraudulent account connected with another individual’s driver application. The driver, and another person—who was a convicted felon—entered Doe’s apartment after the ride and raped and stole from her.

Doe sued Lyft, Inc., alleging products liability and other claims. The defense removed the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss.

Denying the motion as to the products liability claim, the district court noted that although courts have been hesitant to apply products liability principles to websites and other software products providing matching services to users—including social media and dating websites—there was a recent trend expanding products liability theories to such platforms. The court cited a multidistrict litigation decision related to sexual assaults on the Uber platform. There, the court said, a California federal district court held that although the Uber app was not a tangible product under the Restatement, the design and distribution of the app was sufficiently analogous to the distribution and use of tangible personal property such that it was appropriate to apply the rules of strict liability. Although the California decision does not apply with the same force to the current district, the court here said, it is still persuasive. Moreover, the decision comports with similar dicta from a Kansas appellate court case holding that malfunctioning software was a “good” subject to the Uniform Commerical Code.

Consequently, the court held that the facts as pleaded here were sufficient to establish that the Lyft app was a software or algorithmic product with sufficient similarities to a tangible product to subject it to products liability law. The plaintiff must therefore show how an alleged design or functional flaw in the app led to a specific injury and how an alternative app design would have prevented the assault from occurring. The plaintiff’s arguments that there was a lack of screening measures and that the app had failed to identify that the biometric information was different between the two photos in the Lyft driver application support causation here, the court said, holding that the plaintiff had met the threshold necessary to survive a motion to dismiss.

Citation: Doe v. Lyft, Inc., 2024 WL 4651015 (D. Kan. Nov. 1, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: Andrew J. Goodwin and Matthew A. Johnston, both of Kansas City, Mo.