Close Menu

Lyft Driver Shot And Killed As Mother Blames Employer For Failed Warning


This is a complex case. The family of a Lyft driver has filed a lawsuit against Lyft after their son was shot and killed by a member of the public who had been targeting rideshare drivers throughout the day. The family claims that Lyft knew about the attacks and did not tell their drivers, creating an unreasonably dangerous situation that resulted in the death of their loved one. Lyft has yet to respond to the lawsuit, but if dispatchers did have foreknowledge of the attacks and failed to tell the drivers, then Lyft could be held responsible for this death. A subsequent claim has also been filed against the shooter’s mother.

The lawsuit claims that the shooter used his mother’s cell phone to arrange rideshare rides and then rob the drivers. They believe this occurred multiple times prior to his death with reports making their way to dispatchers but not to drivers. If there is evidence that Lyft intentionally concealed this information, then that could result in punitive damages.

What will Lyft say to defend the lawsuit? 

They will likely say that they didn’t know that their drivers were being specifically targeted as the information came in out of sequence or it wasn’t clear that a specific area was being targeted. Ultimately, they can blame everything on a communications breakdown that may involve other parties, including 911 dispatchers, police response, and more. While Lyft does have a duty of care to ensure their drivers are notified of danger, the government would not have a duty of care to intervene on the public’s behalf in a manner that the public could dictate. In other words, law enforcement retains control over how they handle a situation, and the public does not get to sue because the outcome was bad. Lyft will claim it didn’t have enough evidence or time to issue a danger report.

What does the plaintiff need to win? 

The plaintiff will need evidence that Lyft knew or should have known (had they been paying attention) that their drivers were in danger and then failed to report that danger to the drivers. Ultimately, that is the only way that Lyft can be held responsible for a stray bullet and malicious intent committed by a third party.

In order to prove this, the attorney will need access to all the dispatcher reports and Lyft’s policies concerning dangerous areas. Ultimately, we want to hold Lyft accountable for this death, but we also want to ensure that future drivers don’t suffer the same fate. This was a good man who was a driver for Lyft to put himself through veterinary school. His loss will be felt by the community and his family. If his death could have been prevented with a warning, then we really need to look into putting a warning system in place that saves lives.

Talk to a Miami Personal Injury Lawyer Today 

Work-related injury? Payer Law can help. Call our Miami personal injury lawyers today to schedule a free consultation and we’ll discuss the right means to get your compensation.


Facebook Twitter LinkedIn