A bellwether trial against Uber Technologies Inc. is set to begin April 13 after the plaintiff withdrew her sole expert witness, leaving her without expert testimony on damages in a case alleging a driver sexually assaulted her by grabbing her upper thigh for one to two seconds during a 2019 ride in North Carolina.
Court filings show the withdrawn expert, licensed clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Heleya Rad, was the plaintiff’s only witness supporting claims of PTSD, anxiety and long-term emotional harm. Without that testimony, the plaintiff, identified as “WHB 823,” will proceed to trial without expert evidence to quantify damages.
The driver denies the allegations and any physical contact.
The plaintiff has also dropped punitive damages and dismissed direct negligence and product liability claims, narrowing the case to whether Uber can be held liable under a “common carrier” duty to provide safe transportation. Without expert testimony, the plaintiff may face challenges proving the extent of emotional and psychological damages at trial.
In a joint submission, the parties said the streamlined claims will limit evidence and shorten proceedings, with the trial expected to last no more than nine days.
“To avoid any unnecessary motion practice, the parties will work together to discuss in more detail what evidence will be relevant to narrow any issues in dispute, and which expert witnesses will and will not be called to testify, and to what general relevant topics,” the submission states.
The plaintiff has also dismissed the direct negligence and product liability causes of action, opting instead to proceed solely on the theory that Uber, as a common carrier, has a duty to ensure safe transportation.
As a result, there “will be no punitive damages at issue in the trial and the scope of relevant and admissible evidence from both parties will be limited substantially,” according to the joint submission. The streamlined presentation is expected to shorten proceedings, with the trial expected to last no more than nine days.
By eliminating punitive damages, the plaintiff narrows the trial to whether Uber can be held liable for its drivers under a “common carrier” duty to provide safe transportation.
Uber has contested the “common carrier” designation, which would hold the company liable for the actions of independent contractors.
The case, originally filed in North Carolina, is part of a federal multidistrict litigation overseen by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in California, though the current bellwether trial is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina.
On its website, Uber maintains a webpage titled “Our commitment to safety,” in which it notes its continued efforts to outline safety measures aimed at reducing risks for passengers.
The company says “all drivers are background checked before their first trip” through a “multi-step safety screen,” and that it “rescreens drivers at least every year” while monitoring for issues between checks.
For emergencies, Uber notes that “if you call 911 from the Uber app, the app displays your live location and trip details,” with some cities receiving this information automatically. It also uses RideCheck, which can detect “if a trip goes unusually off-course” allowing the company to “reach out to provide you with the resources you need to get help.”
The company also notes it uses “technology to help keep your phone number private” and “concealing specific pickup and dropoff addresses in a driver’s trip history.” It also cites “a dedicated public safety team” that shares “timely, critical information” with law enforcement.
