The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on September 18, 2026, that DoorDash may owe a duty of care to the general public, including drivers like Brian Oller, who was injured in a crash involving a DoorDash driver. This ruling could have significant implications for how delivery companies operate and their liability in accidents involving their drivers.
The case arose from a serious accident on July 31, 2020, when DoorDash driver Trey Culvey ran a stop sign and crashed into Oller's truck. Oller was severely injured in the collision and subsequently sued both Culvey and DoorDash. He claimed that DoorDash was independently negligent for encouraging unsafe driving through its business model and app.
The dispute centered on whether DoorDash owed Oller a duty of care. DoorDash argued that it did not owe such a duty and sought a judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted. Oller appealed the decision, leading to the recent ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The court, led by Judge Felix, reversed the trial court's decision, stating that DoorDash could indeed owe a duty to Oller. The ruling emphasized that DoorDash's business model incentivizes drivers to operate quickly, which could lead to dangerous driving practices. The judges noted, "We conclude DoorDash owed Oller a general duty of protection from the risks and dangers of its business model and app which financially incentivize distracted or otherwise dangerous driving." This statement highlights the court's recognition of the potential risks associated with DoorDash's operations.
In its ruling, the court applied the Webb test, which evaluates the existence of a duty based on the relationship between the parties, the foreseeability of harm, and public policy considerations. The court found that the relationship between DoorDash and Oller, while indirect, was sufficient to establish a duty. Additionally, the court noted the foreseeability of harm was high given the nature of DoorDash's business.
The court's decision may set a precedent for how delivery companies are held accountable for the actions of their drivers. It underscores the importance of considering the business practices of companies like DoorDash in relation to public safety. The ruling could lead to increased scrutiny of how delivery apps operate and the potential risks they pose to the public.
Going forward, this ruling may impact how delivery companies structure their business models and implement safety measures. It raises questions about the responsibilities of companies that rely on independent contractors to operate vehicles while using their apps. The decision could encourage other injured parties to seek legal action against delivery companies in similar circumstances.
Oller's case will now return to the trial court for further proceedings, where the court will reconsider Oller's motions to compel discovery from DoorDash. This means that Oller may have the opportunity to gather more evidence regarding DoorDash's business practices and their impact on safety.
As this case continues, it may also prompt discussions about potential legislative changes regarding the responsibilities of delivery companies and the safety of their drivers. The outcome could influence future cases involving delivery services and their liability for accidents caused by their drivers.
In summary, the Indiana Court of Appeals has opened the door for greater accountability of delivery companies like DoorDash in accidents involving their drivers. The ruling highlights the need for these companies to consider the safety implications of their business practices and the potential consequences for the public.