Helen Lawless of Kline & Specter. Courtesy photo Calif. Prop 22 Decision Raises Questions for Rideshare Injury Cases in Pa. and Beyond
The statute repeatedly describes rideshare drivers as "independent contractors," and as a result, rideshare industry advocates have argued that Uber and Lyft cannot be found vicariously liable for their drivers. In California, as in Pennsylvania and most states, employers are generally not vicariously liable for their independent contractors' negligence.
August 16, 2024 at 11:02 AM
6 minute read
The recent decision in California upholding Proposition 22 does not immunize the rideshare industry from tort liability. This statute, and efforts by Uber and Lyft to enact similar legislation across the country, raise important questions for wrongful injury cases here in Pennsylvania and nationwide.
Proposition 22 was enacted in California by ballot initiative after gig economy behemoths like Uber and Lyft sunk over $200 million into the campaign. The statute, the App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative, exempts rideshare drivers from numerous state laws around wages, hours, and other employment conditions. Labor advocates immediately challenged the law, arguing that it violated various provisions of the state constitution. On July 25, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled in Castellanos v. California that Proposition 22 was constitutional.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Lawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
3 minute read
JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
4 minute read
Phila. Judge Upholds $68.5M Verdict Over Construction Worker's Death
3 minute read
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
