In New York State is the company responsible for the negligent actions of their gig worker?

Not only has the gig economy redefined the concept of work, giving individuals the flexibility to choose when, where, and how they work, but it has also raised questions concerning the legal classification of these individuals along with the overarching legal question of who is responsible when one of these gig-economy workers is negligent. What happens when, in the course of carrying out their duties, the “gig-worker” injures somebody? Whether it is an Uber Eats driver getting into a car accident on his/her way to drop off food at a customer's home or a delivery person smashing a cart of packages into a pedestrian on a crowded New York City sidewalk, the question becomes: when do the actions of the “gig-worker’ become legally attributable to the multi-million or billion dollar tech company behind the scenes? 

In cases involving gig workers, we look not only at the individual who caused the accident but also the company on whose behalf the worker was acting at the time of the accident. We do this by arguing 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.               

How do you prove that the company is vicariously liable for the actions of the gig worker?

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 around the country 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 discovery and the depositions of the corporate witnesses from these tech companies.  

Through a thorough familiarity with the App, a command of the companies’ policies, rules and regulations, and an understanding of the rapidly evolving case law 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.  

Hard-fought battles have taught us that the best way to handle these "gig-worker cases” is to go on the offensive early and often, and to continue pushing until we have enough ammunition to demonstrate that the company should be found legally responsible for the actions of their gig worker. 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, often times, until well after the worker has logged off. We aggressively seek discovery and testimony that highlight the level of domination over the gig worker’s day to day actions and do not stop until we are confident that we can successfully put the matter before a jury if the defendants fail to fairly compensate our clients for the injuries that were caused by negligent gig workers.