Sheri-Lynn C. Corey-Forte

Key Points: Innovative technologies being utilized by rideshare companies are raising their chances of defeating vicarious liability claims in Florida and throughout the United States. In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2025 WL 15388, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals affirmed a motion for summary judgment in favor of Uber after the court was presented with evidence that the former Uber driver was “off app” at the time of the accident. Florida, along with many other jurisdictions throughout the country, has seen a dramatic uptick in the amount of litigation involving rideshare and food delivery companies, such as Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. While the increasing number of rideshare and food delivery drivers on the roads has certainly contributed to the dramatic surge in litigation, plaintiff firms have also become increasingly daring in the nature of their allegations against these companies. However, the innovative technologies being utilized by these gig economy companies are raising their chances of defeating vicarious liability claims in Florida and throughout the United States. A recent Florida case demonstrates exactly this scenario.  In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2025 WL 15388 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 2, 2025), Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals affirmed a motion for summary judgment in favor of Uber after the court was presented with evidence that the former Uber driver was “off app” at the time of the accident. The plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of Arlevys Molina, brought claims against Uber and Orlando Baez Castillo, a former Uber driver, in a wrongful death action after a tragic accident in Molina’s driveway. The plaintiff argued that Uber was vicariously liable for Castillo’s negligent acts as Castillo was acting within the course and scope of his purported employment with Uber at the time of the accident.  Uber moved for summary judgment based on the fact that Castillo was not logged in to the Uber application at the time of the accident and, in fact, had not logged on to the Uber application for nearly five months. In support of its summary judgment, Uber attached internal data records, amongst other things, showing that Castillo was not logged in to the application at the time of the accident nor had he logged in to the Uber application in months. Castillo also attested several times that he was logged out of the application and driving his personal car when the accident occurred.  After reviewing the evidence, the trial court granted summary judgment in Uber’s favor, finding that the record evidence demonstrated that Castillo was not logged in to the Uber application at the time of the accident. Thus, it held that Uber could not be held liable for conduct outside the scope of any alleged employment because “[w]hen a driver goes offline, it is analogous to a traditional worker ‘clocking out’ or being ‘off the clock.’”  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Uber and argued that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether Castillo was logged in to the Uber application on the day of the accident. In support of her argument, the plaintiff argued that Castillo had two cell phones in his vehicle at the time of the accident and could have been using the Uber application on one of the two phones. The plaintiff, however, offered no evidence and nothing more than speculation for this assertion.  Despite being presented with this speculative argument, the appellate court ultimately agreed that the trial court had correctly considered all of the record evidence in the case and had correctly entered summary judgment in favor of Uber. The appellate court reiterated that all of the record evidence conclusively showed that Castillo was logged off of the Uber application for months and was driving his own vehicle at the time of the accident. As a result, Uber could not be held vicariously liable for Castillo’s negligent actions.  The Campo case demonstrates that obtaining and utilizing the innovative technology available to companies in the gig economy space can be vital to the effective and early resolution of these cases. In rideshare cases, do not forget to inquire as to whether the driver was “off app” at the time of the accident.  *Sheri-Lynn is a member of our Casualty Department and works in our Fort Lauderdale, FL office.    Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.