New York Rideshare and Gig-Economy Accidents
New York Personal Injury Lawsuits and the Gig Economy
In recent years, the way many people work has undergone a significant transformation with the rise of the gig economy. The gig economy, also known as freelancing, represents a departure from traditional, long-term employment models. Not only has it redefined the concept of work, giving individuals the flexibility to choose when, where, and how they work, but it has also raised questions about the legal classification of these individuals along with the overarching question of who is responsible when one of these gig-economy workers is negligent.
The gig economy is characterized by the prevalence of short-term, independent work arrangements, where workers take on tasks, projects, or assignments as independent contractors, freelancers, or temporary workers. While there are countless variations, the underlying concept remains the same; a tech company develops an “App” which links those looking for a product or service with “gig-economy worker” who provides the service.
Rideshare companies such as Uber, LYFT, and CURB connect drivers with passengers. Services such as Grubhub, Uber Eats, and Doordash deliver whatever food one could want to wherever one wants it delivered. Amazon Flex moves packages from their hub to your home by paying regular people driving regular cars to deliver those packages the last few miles. Shipt will deliver from brick-and-mortar Target stores, Spark from Walmart, Instacart from grocery stores, Drizly from liquor stores, and the list goes on. There is even an app for a New York City pharmacy that offers same day delivery to its customers by dispatching gig-workers to pick up the medications from the pharmacy and bring them to the customer’s home or business.
From a personal injury perspective, the elephant in the room is what happens when these gig-economy workers do something wrong. What happens when, in the course of carrying out their duties, the “gig-worker” injures somebody. Be it a rideshare driver getting into a car accident in one of the New York City suburbs or a delivery person smashing a cart of packages into a pedestrian on a crowded New York City sidewalk, the question becomes when the actions of the “gig-worker’ are attributable to the multi-million or billion dollar tech company behind the scenes.
New York Attorneys representing plaintiffs argue that the tech companies are vicariously liable for the actions of their “gig-workers” and rideshare drivers. Vicarious Liability, a complex legal concept with many nuances, concerns the question of whether a person or company can be held legally responsible for the acts or omissions of another person or entity. One type of vicarious liability is based on the theory of Respondeat Superior, which in its simplest form, boils down to whether the superior is responsible for the acts of subordinates.
In cases involving New York gig-economy workers we look not only to the individual who caused the accident but also the company on whose behalf the worker was acting at the time of the accident. These cases are hotly contested by the defendants, and the issue of whether these workers are classified as independent contractors or employees is a rapidly developing and changing area of the law. As an attorney who has handled many of these cases against many of the players in the industry, it is important to stay up to date not only on the App-based technology involved but also on the legal decisions rapidly coming down in New York and around the country and in both the personal injury and employment law fields.
Those decisions guide how I prosecute “gig-economy” cases and they serve as the blueprint for how I choose to approach the depositions of the corporate representatives of these tech companies. The App-based tech companies invariably will assert the defense that the gig-economy worker acting on their behalf is an independent contractor, and they will argue that they are not legally responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, several New York Courts have recently agreed with this argument, dismissing claims against the App-based tech companies on the ground that they were not responsible for the actions of the “gig-workers” who carried out their services.
In fact, recently, in October of 2023, a Queens County Supreme Court Judge issued a decision finding that an Uber driver who struck a plaintiff was an independent contractor and consequently dismissed all claims against Uber. In its decision the Court stated, “Defendants’ have demonstrated Fullerton owned and maintained his own vehicle, paid for his own automobile insurance, received no salary but only retained a percentage of the fares and all of the tips, if any, scheduled his own working hours, had discretion to reject dispatches, and was not provided with W-2 statements. Such evidence established, prima facie, that Fullerton was an independent contractor and as such Defendants cannot be found liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Duncan v. Uber Technologies Inc., New York State Supreme Court, County of Quens, J. Sampson, September 27, 2023.
Decisions such as the one above highlight the stakes involved when deposing the corporate representative from an App-based tech company. Through an in-depth familiarity with the App, a command of the companies policies, rules and regulations, and an understanding of the rapidly evolving caselaw on the issue, it is possible to get into the proverbial lion’s cage with the well-trained corporate witness and extract concessions and information that will bolster and support the plaintiff’s position that these companies should be held responsible for the actions of the “gig-workers” who carry out their business.
We have, and we will, continue to fight tooth and nail to develop these New York Rideshare and Gig-Economy worker accident cases in a manner that puts our clients in the best position to overcome the independent contractor defense.
Through hard-fought battles we have found that the best way to handle these “gig-economy” and rideshare cases is to go on the offensive, early and often, and to continue pushing until we have enough ammunition to diffuse and set aside the question. While the facts and circumstances may differ in individual cases, at the end of the day, our overarching legal argument boils down to the fact that these App-based companies dominate every aspect of the gig-workers work from the moment they log on to the app, and, often times, until well after the “temporary worker” has supposedly logged off. Once the record is full of facts supporting our position, we will swiftly move the case toward trial and challenge the defendant to put the question before a jury.
If you have been involved in an accident involving rideshare, a courier or a delivery service, or if you have been involved in an incident where one of these App-based tech companies may have been involved, such as a black-car or limousine crash, an incident or altercation with a delivery person or a car accident with a vehicle being used to deliver goods, we welcome the opportunity to aggressively being building your case so as to ensure that you are fully compensated for the injures and damages you have sustained.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacting Attorney Adam C. Raffo does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Nothing on this website should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This website and the content herein is for informational and educational purposes only.
