A New York Supreme Court judge has ruled on the use of terminology in a trial concerning a car accident involving an Uber driver. The ruling affects how parties can refer to the driver and vehicle during the trial, which could influence the jury's perception of liability. The decision is significant as it addresses the complexities of Uber's legal status as a transportation network company.
The case, Rawlins v. Myint, filed under docket number Index No. 511200/2020, centers around a motor vehicle collision that occurred on February 9, 2019. The plaintiff, Vanessa Rawlins, claims she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Anderson Newlin Rawlins, which was struck by a vehicle operated by Soe Myint, who was logged into the Uber ride-sharing app at the time of the accident. This case raises important questions about Uber's liability for the actions of its drivers.
The dispute began when Rawlins filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of Myint and seeking to hold Uber vicariously liable for the accident. Uber has denied these allegations, arguing that Myint was not an employee of the company, which is a critical point in determining liability. The case has been assigned to Judge Aaron D. Maslow and is now moving into the liability phase of the trial.
On June 8, 2026, Judge Maslow issued a ruling on a motion filed by Uber Technologies, Inc. The motion sought to exclude certain terms from being used in court, including "Uber driver," "Uber car," and "transportation company." Uber argued that the use of these terms would unfairly influence the jury by suggesting an employment relationship between Myint and Uber, which is a key issue in the case.
Judge Maslow stated, "The terms are not probative and are easily replaced with neutral, factually-accurate alternatives such as 'Myint,' 'the driver,' or 'the other driver.'" He acknowledged Uber's concerns about potential prejudice but ultimately decided that witnesses should not be restricted from using the terms in question. However, he directed the attorneys involved in the case to use alternative language that does not imply an employment relationship.
The court ruled that while witnesses could use terms like "Uber driver," attorneys should refrain from using such language to avoid confusion. The judge emphasized the importance of ensuring that the jury understands the distinction between the driver and the company, stating, "Any potential confusion on the part of the jury can be addressed with a limiting instruction."
This ruling is significant as it highlights the ongoing legal debates surrounding ride-sharing companies and their drivers. The case reflects broader issues about the classification of gig economy workers and the responsibilities of companies like Uber. The judge's decision to allow the use of certain terms by witnesses while restricting attorneys' language aims to balance the need for clarity with the risk of prejudice.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond the current case. It sets a precedent for how terminology related to ride-sharing services can be used in future trials. The decision may influence how similar cases are handled, particularly in New York, where the legal landscape for ride-sharing companies has been evolving.
Looking ahead, the case may still be appealed, depending on the outcome of the trial and any subsequent rulings. The court noted that issues regarding Uber's liability for its drivers have been under consideration in various New York courts, and further determinations from the Appellate Division are anticipated. As this case unfolds, it will continue to shape the legal framework surrounding ride-sharing services and their accountability for drivers' actions.