🚗 Rideshare Crash — Can Lyft Be Liable for Negligently Retaining a Dangerous Driver?

Natasha Abner, etc. v. Lyft Florida, Inc., etc., et al. | Case No. 3D24-0479 | Florida Third District Court of Appeal Argued May 6, 2025 A driver working on the Lyft platform ran a red light shortly after midnight on July 4, 2017, seriously injuring the plaintiff's husband. The trial court entered final summary judgment for Lyft. Philip Gerson argues for the plaintiff that under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 a company can be liable for negligently selecting or retaining an incompetent independent contractor, and that Lyft ignored red flags — a temporary license, prior traffic citations, and a rider complaint that the driver was speeding and running lights — and that Florida's transportation network company statute does not apply because the driver's terms of service predated it and restricted street hails. Bethany Pander argues for Lyft that the TNC statute (§ 627.748), effective days before the crash, governs based on when the cause of action accrued; that Lyft complied with the statute's driver-screening requirements; that its drivers are independent contractors; and that Florida courts have not recognized a negligent-retention duty for independent contractor drivers. The panel tests whether the statute's vicarious-liability section displaces a common-law negligent-retention claim and what notice would trigger a duty to investigate. KEY ISSUES: • Can a rideshare company be liable for negligently retaining an independent contractor driver? • Does Florida's TNC statute apply to a crash that occurred after its effective date when the driver contracted before it? • Does the statute's vicarious-liability safe harbor preempt a common-law negligent selection or retention claim? • Does restricting drivers from accepting street hails defeat independent contractor status under the statute? • Did rider complaints and citations put Lyft on notice to investigate the driver? LEGAL AUTHORITY: • Restatement (Second) of Torts § 411 — negligent selection of a contractor • Suarez (as quoted by counsel at argument) — adopting § 411 in Florida • McGillis v. Department of Economic Opportunity (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (as quoted by counsel at argument) — rideshare drivers as independent contractors • Estate of Youngblood v. Halifax Convalescent Center (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (as quoted by counsel at argument) — law in effect when the cause of action accrues • Bionetics Corp. v. Kenniasty (Fla. 2011) and Menendez (Fla. 2010) (as quoted by counsel at argument) — prospective application of statutes • Standard v. Disposo Products (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) and Davies (as quoted by counsel at argument) — negligent selection of drivers RULES & STATUTES DISCUSSED: • § 627.748, Fla. Stat. — transportation network companies • § 322.07, Fla. Stat. — temporary driver licenses 🔗 Florida Rules & Legal Resources: https://www.floridarules.net #Rideshare #LyftAccident #NegligentRetention #IndependentContractor #PersonalInjury #TNCStatute #CarAccident #SummaryJudgment #ThirdDCA #FloridaAppeal