优步被认定对触摸乘客大腿内侧的司机行为承担责任


2026年4月21日 / 美国东部时间凌晨4:54 / 美联社 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻

北卡罗来纳州陪审团周一裁定,网约车巨头优步需对一名司机的行为承担责任。该司机在一名乘客从其车前排座位下车时,抓了她的大腿内侧,并询问能否“留她陪自己”。

原告律师之一埃琳·赫德表示,夏洛特的联邦陪审团判给原告5000美元损害赔偿金。

这起所谓的标志性案件是全美多个司法管辖区针对优步提起的一系列性侵诉讼中的一起,也是第三起进入庭审的案件。今年2月,亚利桑那州的一个联邦陪审团判令优步向一名女性支付850万美元,该女子称其一名司机在使用该平台接单的行程中强奸了她。去年,加利福尼亚州的一个陪审团认定优步对一名乘客指称的性侵事件不承担责任。

优步在一份电子邮件声明中提到,北卡罗来纳州这起案件的赔偿金额相对较低,且陪审团认定该行为构成殴打而非性侵。

优步在声明中称:“陪审团此次的裁决应该能让这些案件回归理性,因为此次赔偿金额仅为此前索赔要求的极小一部分。”该公司补充称,有充分理由提起上诉,因为它认为陪审团在责任认定问题上收到了错误的指示。

美联社通常不会公开指称遭受性虐待的人士的姓名,除非他们通过律师表示同意或主动公开身份。

赫德表示,这一裁决对其他原告来说是个好兆头,并指出是优步而非原告选择将北卡罗来纳州这起案件作为一系列未决诉讼的测试案。

“他们原本以为接手这个案子就能赢,”赫德说。“他们挑选了所有标准——他们选定了这个案子,想要审理这个案子。但陪审团相信了原告,他们输了。”

这些诉讼源于多年来对优步安全记录的批评,包括乘客和司机报告的数千起性侵犯事件。由于优步司机被归类为零工——即合同工而非公司雇员,该平台长期以来一直主张无需为他们的不当行为承担责任。

负责审理这批诉讼的法官、美国地区法院法官查尔斯·R·布雷耶裁定,根据北卡罗来纳州法律,优步是“公共承运人”,因此需对该司机的行为承担责任。布雷耶表示,优步通过广告以及对网约车行程和乘客安全的管控,向公众宣称自己是交通服务提供商。他说,北卡罗来纳州本可以像佛罗里达州和德克萨斯州那样,明确将优步和其他网约车提供商从公共承运人责任中豁免,但该州并未这样做。

赫德表示,这意味着北卡罗来纳州的陪审团只需判定袭击是否发生即可。

优步称,该司机否认触碰过原告。该公司还表示,原告从未向执法部门报告过这起事件,公司直到三年后诉讼提起时才得知此事。

赫德表示,原告未向执法部门报案并不意味着事件没有发生。赫德说,在从周三开始、周一结束的庭审中,陪审团听取了司机、原告以及证实原告说法的原告朋友的证词。

总部位于旧金山的美国加利福尼亚北区联邦地区法院法官布雷耶,还将审理另外两起针对优步的性侵测试案庭审。下一场庭审定于9月中旬在旧金山进行。

Uber found liable for actions of driver who grabbed passenger’s inner thigh

April 21, 2026 / 4:54 AM EDT / AP / CBS News

Rideshare giant Uber is liable for the behavior of a driver who grabbed the inner thigh of a passenger as she was leaving the front seat of his car and asked if he could “keep her” with him, a jury in North Carolina found Monday.

The federal jury in Charlotte awarded the plaintiff $5,000 in damages, said Ellyn Hurd, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers.

The so-called bellwether case is part of a broader group of sexual assault lawsuits filed against Uber in multiple jurisdictions around the country and is the third to go to trial. In February, a federal jury in Arizona ordered Uber to pay $8.5 million to a woman who said one of its drivers raped her during a trip using the platform. Last year, a California jury found Uber not liable for the alleged assault of a rider.

Uber, in an emailed statement, took note of the relatively small financial judgment in the North Carolina case and of the jury finding that battery had occurred and not sexual assault.

“The jury’s award here should further bring these cases back to reality, as it represents a tiny fraction of previous demands,” the Uber statement said, adding that the company has strong grounds for appeal because it believes the jury was incorrectly instructed on the question of liability.

The Associated Press doesn’t typically name people who have said they were sexually abused unless they have given consent through their attorneys or come forward publicly.

Hurd said the verdict bodes well for other plaintiffs, noting that Uber, not the plaintiffs, selected the North Carolina case as a test case for the broader group of pending lawsuits.

“This was a case that they thought going in that they were going to win,” Hurd said. “They picked all the criteria – this is the case that they picked, that they wanted to try. And the jury believed the plaintiff and they lost.”

The lawsuits follow years of criticism of Uber’s safety record, including thousands of incidents of sexual assault reported by both passengers and drivers. Because Uber drivers are categorized as gig workers – working as contractors, rather than company employees – the platform has long maintained it’s not liable for their misconduct.

The judge presiding over the group of lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer, ruled that Uber was a “common carrier” under North Carolina law and was thus liable for the driver’s action. Breyer said Uber holds itself out to the public as a transportation provider through its advertising and the control it exerts over Uber rides and the safety of its passengers. North Carolina could have explicitly exempted Uber and other rideshare providers from its common carrier liability, as Florida and Texas have, but did not, he said.

Hurd said that means the North Carolina jury only had to decide whether the attack happened.

The driver denied touching the plaintiff, Uber said. The company said the plaintiff never reported the incident to law enforcement and it only learned of it when the lawsuit was filed three years later.

Hurd said just because the plaintiff didn’t report it to law enforcement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. During the trial, which started Wednesday and wrapped up Monday, the jury heard testimony from the driver, the plaintiff and friends of the plaintiff who corroborated her story, Hurd said.

Breyer, who is based in San Francisco in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is due to hear two more sexual assault test case trials against Uber. The next is scheduled for mid-September in San Francisco.

评论

发表回复

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注