A New York court recently ruled against Uber drivers Pasang Sherpa and Pamu Diki Sherpa in a personal injury case involving a rear-end collision. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on May 20, 2026, that the Sherpa defendants failed to prove they were not at fault in the accident. This ruling allows the case to move forward, impacting the Sherpa defendants and the plaintiff, Ena Saintsimon-Jeanty.
The case stems from an incident in May 2021 when Saintsimon-Jeanty was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Pasang Sherpa. The Sherpa vehicle was struck from behind in a chain reaction accident involving two other vehicles. The court's decision highlights the complexities of negligence cases, particularly in the context of rideshare services like Uber.
In this case, the Sherpa defendants argued that they were not responsible for the accident. They claimed that Pasang Sherpa stopped at a red light when their vehicle was struck from behind by another car. However, the court found that there were sufficient questions regarding the circumstances of the accident that needed to be resolved in a trial.
Background
The parties involved in this case are Ena Saintsimon-Jeanty, the plaintiff, and Pasang Sherpa and Pamu Diki Sherpa, the defendants. The Sherpa defendants are connected to Uber as the vehicle was being operated as an Uber taxi at the time of the accident. The other defendants include Jean Sanon and David Butler, whose vehicles were also involved in the collision.
The dispute began when Saintsimon-Jeanty filed a lawsuit against the Sherpa defendants and others, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in the accident. The case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, and the Sherpa defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them before the trial. They argued that they were not at fault for the accident, claiming that the rear-end collision was caused by the actions of Sanon, who was driving the vehicle that struck them.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court denied the Sherpa defendants' motion for summary judgment on March 21, 2024. The court found that there were unresolved issues regarding negligence that warranted a trial. The Sherpa defendants then appealed this decision, seeking to have the ruling overturned.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the Sherpa defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied. The ruling stated, "A defendant moving for summary judgment in a negligence action has the burden of establishing, prima facie, that he or she was not at fault in the happening of the subject accident." This means that the defendants needed to provide clear evidence that they were not responsible for the accident.
The court noted that the evidence presented by the Sherpa defendants did not eliminate the possibility of their negligence. Specifically, the affidavit provided by Pasang Sherpa indicated that he stopped at a red light, but the court found that this alone did not sufficiently demonstrate that he was faultless. The court stated, "In opposition, the plaintiff, Sanon, and Butler relied upon... the affidavit of Sanon... [which] raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Pasang was negligent in the happening of the accident." This indicates that the court believed there were still questions about the actions of the Sherpa defendants that needed to be addressed in court.
The judges involved in this ruling included Mark C. Dillon, Lara J. Genovesi, Donna-Marie E. Golia, and Phillip Hom. Their collective decision emphasized the importance of allowing the case to proceed to trial, where the facts could be more thoroughly examined.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved and for similar cases in the future. For the Sherpa defendants, the decision means they will have to face the allegations of negligence in court, potentially leading to financial liability if they are found at fault. For Saintsimon-Jeanty, this ruling represents a step forward in her pursuit of justice and compensation for her injuries.
The case also sheds light on the legal responsibilities of rideshare drivers and the complexities of negligence cases in general. It reinforces the notion that even if a driver believes they are not at fault, the circumstances surrounding an accident can lead to disputes that must be resolved in court. This ruling may set a precedent for future negligence cases involving rideshare services, emphasizing the need for clear evidence when arguing for summary judgment.
What's Next
The case will now proceed to trial, where both sides will have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments. It remains to be seen how the court will rule on the issue of negligence based on the facts presented during the trial. There is currently no indication that the Sherpa defendants will appeal this ruling further, but the outcome of the trial could influence any future actions they might consider.