Brooklyn Jury to Weigh Uber Liability in Landmark Tort Case

A Brooklyn jury is set to determine whether an Uber driver should be classified as an employee or an independent contractor, a decision that carries significant implications for how the rideshare giant handles liability in personal injury lawsuits. The case stems from a 2019 vehicle collision involving passenger Vanessa Rawlins and driver Soe Myint.

While Justice Francois Rivera previously established Myint’s personal liability for the accident in 2022, the question of whether Uber shares that responsibility remained unresolved. During recent proceedings, Uber sought a directed verdict, arguing that Myint maintained full autonomy over his work schedule and methods, and operated under a 1099 tax designation rather than as a W2 employee.

On July 13, Justice Aaron Maslow denied the company’s motion, concluding that the evidence regarding the level of control Uber exerts over its drivers is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant a jury’s deliberation. "The Court concluded that reasonable jurors could differ as to whether Uber exercised sufficient control over the manner and means by which Myint performed his work," Maslow wrote in his decision.

Legal experts note that this case marks a departure from previous labor-related rulings in New York. While the state’s Appellate Division previously determined that Uber must contribute to unemployment insurance for its drivers, observers suggest that the standards for tort liability may differ from those applied to worker benefits. Andrea Johnson, a professor at New York Law School, noted that because tort claims are handled on an individual basis rather than through class actions, the financial risk for the company could accumulate case by case.

For plaintiffs, the classification of a driver as an employee could fundamentally alter the outcome of damage awards. Because Uber possesses greater financial resources than individual drivers, a finding of employment could increase the likelihood of full compensation for victims of serious accidents. As the trial progresses, the outcome remains a closely watched development in the ongoing legal debate over the gig economy’s corporate responsibilities.