You are on page 1of 8

FILED

4/3/2019 12:03 PM 2 CITS PPS - SAC 1


Mary Angie Garcia W/ JD
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Victoria Angeles

2019CI06788
CAUSE NO. _________

JANE DOE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT


Plaintiff, § 57th
§ _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
v. §
§
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and §
JACOBO MANUEL GUTIERREZ §
Defendants. § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION


WITH JURY DEMAND AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

COMES NOW, JANE DOE, Plaintiff, who files this Original Petition, complaining

of UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and JACOBO MANUEL GUTIERREZ, Defendants

herein, and for their causes of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I. DISCOVERY TRACK

1.1 Plaintiff pleads that this case should be assigned to Discovery Level Three.

II. PARTIES TO THE LAWSUIT

2.1 Plaintiff JANE DOE is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bexar

County, Texas. Jane Doe brings suit in her individual capacity and under a pseudonym

in order to protect her privacy.

2.2 Defendant, UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., is a Delaware corporation

located at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103 doing business in Bexar

County and the State of Texas and may be served with citation and a copy of this petition

by serving its Texas registered agent for service: CT Corporate System 1999 Bryan St., Ste

900 Dallas, TX 75201.

2.3 Defendant, JACOBO MANUEL GUTIERREZ is a resident of San Antonio,

Bexar County, Texas and may be served with process at his residence address, 7519 Pipers

Glade St., San Antonio, TX 78251.


III. VENUE AND JURISDICTION

3.1 Venue is proper in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to Section 15.002(a)(2) of

the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, in that all or a substantial part of the events or

omissions complained of occurred within the boundaries of Bexar County, Texas, and

because Defendant Gutierrez is a resident of Bexar County, Texas.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

4.1 On or about July 14, 2018, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, requested an Uber ride home

from a Northeast Side sports bar in San Antonio because she was intoxicated after a night

of drinking. Uber driver and Defendant, Jacobo Manuel Gutierrez, responded to the ride

request and picked up Jane Doe. Prior to arriving at her home, Gutierrez pulled over into

an empty parking lot, got into the back seat, and made nonconsensual sexual contact with

Jane Doe. Uber’s Jacobo Gutierrez then drove Doe home, followed her inside, made

nonconsensual sexual contact with her and sexually assaulted her.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

A. NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE

5.1 Defendant, Uber Technologies, Inc., is a common carrier with a non-

delegable duty to transport passengers safely, and therefore, is held to a high degree of

care. As a common carrier, Uber had a duty to do that which a very cautious, competent,

and prudent company would have exercised to avoid harm to others under the same or

similar circumstance as those described herein.

5.2 Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by Defendant, Uber

Technologies, Inc.’s negligent, careless and reckless disregard of said duty.

5.3 The negligent, careless and reckless disregard of said duty of Uber

Page 2
Technologies, Inc., consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions:

(a) In negligently hiring, supervising, monitoring, and retaining

Defendant Gutierrez;

(b) In failing to have proper policies and procedures in place to ensure

the proper screening and evaluation of job candidates prior to hiring

them as Uber drivers;

(c) In failing to have proper policies and procedures in place to

supervise and monitor the activity of Uber drivers;

(d) In failing properly train Defendant Gutierrez;

(e) In negligently controlling Defendant Gutierrez;

(f) In failing to ensure the safety of Jane Doe and provide safe transit to

her; and

(g) In failing to monitor the trip and route.

5.4 These acts and omissions, singularly and collectively, when viewed

objectively involve an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude

of the potential harm to others, when and even though its vice principals, officers and

employees, had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless

proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others.

Accordingly, Defendant has committed gross negligence and should be held accountable

as such.

B. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

5.5 At all relevant times Jacobo Gutierrez was acting within the course and

scope of his employment and/or agency with Uber. In addition, at all relevant times

Gutierrez was under the direct control and supervision of Uber. As a result, Defendant

Page 3
Uber Technologies, is responsible for Gutierrez’s conduct under the doctrine of respondeat

superior.

C. JOINT ENTERPRISE WITH GUTIERREZ

5.6 At all relevant times, Jacobo Gutierrez and Uber had an agreement to

provide transportation services for profit, a common purpose to make profit while

providing transportation services, and an equal right to control the enterprise.

Accordingly, Uber is liable for Gutierrez’s conduct under the theory of joint enterprise.

D. JOINT VENTURE WITH GUTIERREZ

5.7 At all relevant times, Jacobo Gutierrez and Uber had a joint interest in

providing transportation services for profit, an agreement to share profits, an express

agreement to share losses, and a mutual right of control of management of the venue.

Accordingly, Uber is liable for Gutierrez’s conduct under the theory of joint venture.

E. NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING

5.8 Uber Technologies undertook to perform services that it knew or should

have known were necessary for Jane Doe’s protection, including but not limited to

implementing measures and practices for rider safety. Uber did not exercise reasonable

care in performing those services. Jane Doe relied on Uber’s performance of those

services. Further, Uber’s negligent performance of those services increased Doe’s risk of

harm. Uber’s negligence proximately caused Plaintiff’s catastrophic injuries.

F. FRAUD

5.9 Uber Technologies made representations to Doe which were material and

false, including but not limited representations that Uber had implemented measures and

practices for rider safety. At the time representations were made, Uber knew them to be

false. Alternatively, Uber made the representations recklessly, as a positive assertion,

and without knowledge of its truth. Uber Technologies made these representations with
Page 4
the intent that Plaintiff would act and rely on them. Doe relied on Uber’s representations.

These representations caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

G. FRAUD BY NONDISCLOSURE

5.10 Uber Technologies concealed from Doe and failed to disclose to Doe

material facts which they had a duty to disclose. These material facts include, but are not

limited to,

(a) Uber allows it drivers to access its platform without conducting adequate

screening or interviews;

(b) Uber believes that they have no responsibility for the conduct of its drivers;

(c) Uber believes that they have no responsibility to train, monitor, or

supervise its drivers;

(d) Uber does not monitor trips for passenger safety; and

(e) The number of sexual assaults committed by Uber drivers is “disturbing”

according to Uber’s Chief Legal Officer, Tony West.

5.11 At the time that Doe hailed the Uber driven by her assailant, Doe was

unaware of these facts and did not have an opportunity to discover them herself.

Nevertheless, Uber was deliberately silent despite having a duty to speak. By failing to

disclose these facts, Uber intended to induce Doe into riding with Uber and not seeking

out another means of transportation. Doe was injured as a result of acting without the

knowledge of those undisclosed facts.

VII. CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST JACOBO MANUEL GUTIERREZ

A. ASSAULT

7.1 Defendant Gutierrez intentionally and knowingly assaulted Jane Doe.

Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by this assault.

Page 5
B. NEGLIGENCE

7.2 Defendant Gutierrez had a duty to act like reasonably prudent person

would have under the same or similar circumstances. Gutierrez failed to act like a

reasonably prudent person would have under the same or similar circumstances, and

such failure and breach of that duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.

VIII. DAMAGES

8.1 As a result of the incident in question, Plaintiff has sustained both past and

future, physical impairment, both past and future, physical pain and mental anguish, and

both past and future, disfigurement. Nearly all of the elements of damages for personal

injury are unliquidated and, therefore, not subject to precise computation. Plaintiff seeks

to recover damages in amounts that the jury finds the evidence supports and that the jury

finds to be appropriate under all of the circumstances, which said amount is in excess of

Ten Million Dollars.

8.2 As a result of the gross neglect and malice by Defendants, said Defendants

should have exemplary damages assessed against them in an amount deemed

appropriate by the jury.

IX. PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

9.1 Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

X. JURY DEMAND

10.1 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury for all issues of fact and have submitted the

requisite timely and proper jury fee.

Page 6
XI. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

11.1 Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,

Defendants are requested to disclose, within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the

information or material described in Rule 194.2 (a)-(l), inclusive of the information described

in Rule 192.3(f).

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited

to appear and answer herein, that this cause be set down for trial before a jury, and that

Plaintiff recover judgment of and from the Defendants for her actual and exemplary

damages, jointly and severally, in such amount as the evidence may show and that a jury

may determine to be proper, together with the prejudgment interest, post-judgment

interest, costs of suit, and such other and further relief to which she may show herself to

be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

WIGINGTON RUMLEY DUNN &


BLAIR, L.L.P.
601 Howard St.
San Antonio, TX 78212
Telephone: (210) 487-7500
Telecopier: (210) 487-7501

/s/ Jeffrey G. Wigington


Jeffrey G. Wigington
SBN: 00785246
jwigington@wigrum.com
Joseph M. Dunn
SBN: 06245650
jdunn@wigrum.com
Ross W. Evans
SBN: 24064771
revans@wigrum.com
Page 7
And

Roger Turk
SBN: 00788561
rlturk-svc@thomasjhenrylaw.com
Law Offices of Thomas J. Henry
521 Starr Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 985-0600
Facsimile: (361) 985-0601

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Page 8