A federal jury began deliberations Tuesday in the first sexual assault case against Uber to reach trial, with plaintiff Jaylynn Dean seeking $146.2 million in damages for her rape by an Uber driver in 2023. The case represents a critical test for thousands of similar lawsuits consolidated in federal court.
Dean's attorney Deborah Chang told the nine-person jury in Phoenix that the substantial damages request reflects the life-changing nature of the assault. "They always chose profit over protection, prevention and safety," Chang said during closing arguments. "They were rolling the dice on women's safety."
The case centers on an incident in Tempe, Arizona, where former Uber driver Hassan Turay admitted in his deposition that Dean was too intoxicated to consent when he stopped the ride early and had sex with her in the back of his car. Despite Uber's challenges to whether the encounter was consensual, Turay acknowledged Dean's inability to consent due to her intoxication level.
Defending Uber, attorney Kim Bueno acknowledged Dean's suffering but argued the company could not have prevented the assault. "Uber did act with reasonable care," Bueno said. "What happened in that car was not foreseeable."
The three-week trial revealed significant details about Uber's safety protocols and risk assessment procedures. Dean's legal team presented three liability claims: negligence, design defect and apparent agency. Central to their argument was Uber's failure to warn passengers about potential risks despite having tools to assess them.
Dean's attorneys highlighted Uber's Risk Safety Assessment Dispatch system, known as SRAD, which evaluates potential driver-rider matches based on location, time of day and the driver's history to predict the likelihood of serious safety incidents. The system scored Dean's ride with Turay a concerning 0.81 out of 1.
"Uber sent Mr. Turay knowing that SRAD score, and what that SRAD score predicted happened," attorney Alexandra Walsh told the jury. "That ride should have never been sent."
The plaintiffs argued that Uber specifically marketed its services to intoxicated women traveling alone late at night but failed to adequately warn them about heightened risks of sexual assault in those circumstances. At minimum, Dean's attorneys contended, she should have been informed about the high SRAD score for her ride.
The case also exposed Uber's hiring practices for drivers. Company employees admitted during testimony that when hiring Turay, Uber required no resume, references or proof of employment history beyond basic background checks.
This bellwether case holds particular significance as it is among the first of thousands of sexual assault cases consolidated into multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, oversees the consolidated proceedings.
The outcome of this trial and other selected bellwether cases could substantially influence how both Uber and individual plaintiffs approach future litigation strategies. Bellwether trials serve as test cases to help parties and courts understand how similar cases might be resolved, often leading to settlement negotiations for remaining cases.
"What Uber failed to do at the most basic level was just warn her," Walsh argued. "Just tell her so she can decide for herself."
The case highlights broader questions about rideshare companies' responsibilities for passenger safety and the adequacy of current safety measures. Dean's attorneys painted a picture of a company that prioritized profits over passenger protection, particularly for vulnerable customers.
Uber's defense strategy focused on the unpredictability of the assault and their compliance with reasonable safety standards. The company argued that despite having risk assessment tools, the specific incident involving Dean could not have been anticipated or prevented through existing protocols.
The substantial damages request of $146.2 million reflects the severe impact of the assault on Dean's life. Her attorneys described the amount as proportionate to the life-changing trauma she experienced and necessary to hold Uber accountable for its alleged safety failures.
As the jury deliberates, both sides await a verdict that could reshape the landscape for sexual assault litigation against rideshare companies. The consolidated federal litigation represents one of the largest mass tort cases facing the gig economy, with implications extending beyond Uber to other transportation and delivery platforms.
The trial's conclusion marks a pivotal moment in ongoing legal battles over corporate responsibility for user safety in the digital economy. Whatever the jury decides, the case establishes important precedents for how courts will evaluate claims against technology platforms for crimes committed by their contractors.