Uber Found Liable Again as Assault Case Verdicts Mount

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – April 22, 2026 – For the second time this year, a federal jury has found Uber Technologies, Inc. liable for an assault committed by one of its drivers, a verdict that amplifies the legal and financial pressure on the rideshare giant as it faces a wave of more than 3,000 similar claims.

After a four-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, the jury concluded that Uber was legally responsible for the March 26, 2019, assault of passenger Brianna Mensing. During the ride, her driver grabbed her upper thigh and made threatening remarks. The jury awarded Ms. Mensing $5,000 in damages, a figure consistent with her testimony that her primary goal was not financial compensation but to hold the multi-billion-dollar company accountable for passenger safety.

This case is the second “bellwether” trial in a massive multi-district litigation (MDL) that consolidates thousands of passenger sexual assault and harassment lawsuits against Uber. These initial trials are designed to test legal arguments and gauge jury reactions, setting the stage for potential global settlements or further litigation for the remaining cases.

“For the second time this year, a federal jury listened to the testimony of a courageous woman taking on Uber, one of the world's most powerful companies, and found her assault claims credible,” stated the co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in a joint statement. “As Ms. Mensing testified, ‘I'm not after anybody's money’ – her only motivation was to hold Uber accountable for its driver grabbing her thigh, which was achieved.”

A Pattern of Liability Emerges

The Charlotte verdict follows a much larger one from the first bellwether trial in February. In that Arizona case, a federal jury awarded plaintiff Jaylynn Dean $8.5 million in compensatory damages after finding Uber liable for a 2023 sexual assault by a driver. While the jury in that case rejected claims of direct negligence related to Uber’s app design, it found the company liable under the legal theory of “apparent authority,” concluding that Uber’s marketing and conduct led Ms. Dean to reasonably believe the driver was a safe agent acting on the company's behalf.

Together, the two verdicts establish a critical pattern: juries are proving willing to hold Uber responsible for the actions of its drivers, despite the company’s long-held classification of them as independent contractors. While the damage awards differ vastly—reflecting the specifics of each case and the legal instructions given to each jury—the core finding of corporate liability is consistent. In Ms. Mensing's trial, damages were specifically limited by the court to a single 24-hour period, focusing the case squarely on the principle of responsibility rather than the scale of compensation.

Plaintiffs' attorneys noted that during the trial, Uber’s defense attempted to challenge Ms. Mensing’s credibility by introducing aspects of her personal history. “We would like to thank the jury for seeing it for what it was – a shameful attempt to deflect responsibility,” the co-lead counsel added.

The 'Common Carrier' Conundrum

A pivotal factor in the North Carolina case was a pre-trial ruling by Judge Charles R. Breyer, who oversees the entire MDL. Judge Breyer determined that under North Carolina law, Uber qualifies as a “common carrier.” This legal designation, historically applied to transportation services like airlines and bus lines, is a significant blow to Uber’s legal defense.

Common carriers are held to a heightened, non-delegable duty of care, meaning they have an utmost responsibility to ensure the safety of their passengers. This duty cannot be offloaded onto an independent contractor. For years, Uber has lobbied aggressively in state legislatures to avoid this classification, arguing it is a technology platform, not a transportation provider. While some states like Florida have passed laws exempting rideshare companies from common carrier status, courts in other key states, including California and Texas, have moved toward applying this higher standard.

Judge Breyer’s ruling meant the North Carolina jury was instructed that Uber had a heightened duty to provide a safe ride. Their task was simply to determine if the assault occurred and to award damages. This legal framework makes it substantially more difficult for Uber to distance itself from driver misconduct in jurisdictions that recognize it as a common carrier.

Safety Under the Microscope

In response to mounting public pressure and prior litigation, Uber has rolled out numerous safety features over the years. The company's driver screening process includes criminal background checks, motor vehicle record reviews, and annual re-screening. Its app includes a “Safety Center” with features like an emergency 911 button, the ability to share trip details with “Trusted Contacts,” and RideCheck, a system that uses GPS data to detect unusual stops or detours.

More recently, in March 2026, the company launched a “Women Rider Preference” feature nationwide, allowing female-identifying users to request drivers of the same gender. These measures, however, are being weighed against the thousands of incidents detailed in the MDL. Critics argue that many of these features were reactive, implemented only after significant safety failures and public outcry.

Competitor Lyft has deployed a similar suite of safety tools, including its own version of trip monitoring and emergency assistance through a partnership with ADT. Both companies publish transparency reports detailing safety incidents, but with nearly 6,000 reports of sexual assault filed against Uber over a two-year period in one report, and over 4,000 against Lyft in another, the data underscores that risk remains an inherent part of the rideshare ecosystem.

With two verdicts now on the books against Uber, the focus intensifies on the thousands of remaining plaintiffs in the MDL. Four additional bellwether trials are scheduled to proceed in the coming months. The next two are set to begin consecutively on September 14, 2026, and will be tried before Judge Breyer in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, bringing the legal battle to Uber's home turf in San Francisco.