Appeals Court Says Lyft Shielded in Crash

TALLAHASSEE — Pointing to a 2017 state law that helped shield ride-hailing companies from liability, an appeals court Wednesday rejected a lawsuit stemming from a crash that resulted in a motorcyclist suffering neurological injuries.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal upheld a Miami-Dade County circuit judge’s ruling that the ride-hailing company Lyft was not liable in the crash involving a Lyft driver. The 2017 law created a set of regulations related to companies such as Lyft and Uber, including saying that drivers can be considered independent contractors if certain conditions are met.

In rejecting arguments that Lyft was “vicariously” liable in the July 5, 2017, accident that injured Dexter Franklin, the appeals court said, in part, that driver Rolando Cepero was working as an independent contractor at the time.

Subscribe to The Florida Jolt Newsletter!

The 11-page opinion, written by Judge Thomas Logue and joined by Judges Monica Gordo and Alexander Bokor, said “a principal is not vicariously liable for the injury caused by the negligence of an independent contractor. This is because the party that retained an independent contractor has no control over the way the work is done.”

The accident happened four days after the state law took effect. A brief filed last year at the appeals court by attorneys for Franklin’s guardian, Natasha Abner, said Cepero was transporting a passenger and ran a red light before colliding with a motorcycle driven by Franklin. It said Franklin “received severe and permanent neurological injuries and remains permanently disabled, requiring a plenary guardian.”

Abner filed a lawsuit and reached a settlement with Cepero, Wednesday’s opinion said. In addition to arguing that Lyft was vicariously liable, the lawsuit contended the company was negligent in hiring and retaining Cepero, at least in part because of traffic citations he had received. Cepero became a Lyft driver in 2016, according to the opinion.

The lawsuit also contended that the 2017 law should not apply because it took effect after Cepero was hired. It cited what is known as a “terms of services” agreement between Lyft and Cepero.

“Lyft and the trial (circuit) court below assumed erroneously that the transportation network regulatory statute effective on July 1, 2017, applied to this case and relieved it of the duties Lyft had assumed under its terms of service contract,” the brief filed last year by Abner’s attorneys said. “When substantive rights and duties under a contract are at issue, however, the governing substantive law is the law in effect when the contract was executed, not the law in effect at some later time when a related cause of action may accrue.”

But the appeals court ruled that because the “cause of action accrued on the date of the accident, and the statute reflected the law of Florida on that date, we conclude the (2017) statute governs this case.”

---

Other stories you may want to read:

Best Cartoons: KBJ, Healthy Pritzker, and Winning