North Carolina Woman Sues Uber Over 2019 Driver Assault

A North Carolina jury has ordered Uber to pay $5,000 to a woman who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a driver during a ride in 2019, marking one of the first trial verdicts in a wave of similar lawsuits against the rideshare company.

The verdict, delivered in Wake County Superior Court on April 18, 2026, found that Uber failed to adequately screen or supervise the driver involved in the incident, despite prior complaints about his conduct. The plaintiff, identified in court documents as Jane Doe, testified that the driver assaulted her after dropping her off at her residence in Raleigh following a late-night ride.

Uber’s legal team argued that the company acted as a neutral technology platform and bore no responsibility for the actions of independent contractors. However, the jury rejected that defense, concluding that Uber’s background check processes and response to safety reports were insufficient under North Carolina’s negligence laws.

The $5,000 award covers compensatory damages for emotional distress and medical expenses. Punitive damages were not awarded, as the jury found the conduct, while harmful, did not rise to the level of reckless indifference required for such damages under state law.

This case is part of a broader legal challenge facing Uber, with over 3,000 similar lawsuits pending across the United States alleging assault, harassment, or inadequate safety measures by drivers. Plaintiffs in these cases often claim that Uber’s reliance on third-party background checks and its rating-based accountability system fail to prevent dangerous individuals from accessing the platform.

In response to mounting legal and regulatory pressure, Uber has implemented several safety features in recent years, including real-time trip sharing, audio recording options (where legally permitted), and an in-app emergency button that connects riders to 911. The company also updated its background check policy in 2023 to include continuous criminal monitoring in select states.

Despite these measures, critics argue that Uber’s core business model — classifying drivers as independent contractors — limits its ability to enforce uniform safety standards. Regulators in California, New York, and Massachusetts have pursued legal action to reclassify drivers as employees, which would increase Uber’s liability for worker conduct.

Uber has not commented on the specific verdict but reiterated its commitment to safety in a statement provided to News Directory 3: “We are continually investing in technology and policies to make every ride safer. While no system is perfect, we believe our safety tools and partnerships with law enforcement help protect both riders and drivers.”

The plaintiff’s attorney, James Carter of the Raleigh-based firm Carter & Associates, said the verdict sends a message: “Companies that profit from connecting strangers cannot hide behind technicalities when their systems fail to prevent harm. Accountability must extend beyond the app.”

The case underscores ongoing tensions in the gig economy over liability, worker classification, and platform responsibility. As courts grapple with whether technology firms should be treated as passive intermediaries or active service providers, outcomes like this one may shape future regulations and corporate practices in the rideshare and delivery sectors.