Uber Complaint

1/7/2020 10:44 AM
20CV01649
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

5 FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
6 PENNY LEGGETT, an individual, ) Case No.:
)
7 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT
)
8 v. ) ACTION FOR ASSAULT; BATTERY;
) NEGLIGENCE
9 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a foreign )
corporation; WOSEY YEANEY, an ) NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY
10 individual; ) ARBITRATION
)
11 Defendants. ) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
)
12 ) AMOUNT OF PRAYER: $1,025,000.00
)
13 ) FILING FEE: $ 884.00 pursuant to ORS 21.160(d)
)
14
15
Plaintiff alleges:
16
PARTIES & JURISDICTION
17
1.
18
Plaintiff Penny Leggett (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Leggett”) is a resident of Washington
19
County, Oregon.
20
2.
21
Defendant Uber Technologies Inc. (“Defendant Uber” or “Uber”) is a foreign
22
corporation, incorporated in Delaware, and headquartered in San Francisco, California.
23
Defendant is registered to conduct business in Oregon, and does conduct business throughout
24
Oregon.
25
///
26
///
Page 1 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC
Sean J. Riddell P.C.
2905 NE Broadway St.
Portland, OR 97232
1 3.
2 Defendant Wosey Yeaney (“Defendant Yeaney” or “Yeaney”), on information and belief,
3 is a resident of Washington County, Oregon.
4 4.
5 All of the material events complained of herein took place in Washington County,
6 Oregon. Further, Defendant employed Wosey Yeaney—the perpetrator of the physical acts
7 complained of herein—who worked in Washington County, Oregon. Accordingly, this Court has
8 jurisdiction and venue is proper in the Circuit Court for the County of Washington.
9 FACTS
10 5.
11 On or about January 13, 2018, beginning at approximately 6:00 pm, Ms. Leggett went out
12 for the evening with friends. Over the course of several hours, Ms. Leggett consumed several
13 alcoholic beverages resulting in Ms. Leggett becoming intoxicated.
14 6.
15 At the conclusion of the evening with her friends, around 3:30 a.m. on January 14, 2018,
16 Ms. Leggett used Defendant Uber’s smartphone application (“Uber’s app”) to hail a ride home.
17 7.
18 Uber’s app allows potential passenger to send a request to Uber, which tells Uber that the
19 passenger would like a ride to a destination. Uber takes that request, calculates the cost based on
20 its estimate of the route and time, and then gives that request to one of its driver employees,
21 typically the nearest available driver to the passenger’s departure location. At Uber’s direction,
22 that driver then picks up the passenger and takes them to the requested destination.
23 8.
24 Ms. Leggett requested a ride from Uber through Uber’s app on January 14, 2018. Uber
25 directed its driver employee, Defendant Yeaney, to pick up Ms. Leggett and drive her to her
26 requested destination—her home.

Portland, OR 97232
1 9.
2 When Defendant Yeaney arrived to pick up Ms. Leggett, the back passenger doors on his
3 car were locked; he did not unlock them. Ms. Leggett was forced to sit in the front passenger seat
4 of Defendant Yeaney’s vehicle. They were the only two people in Defendant Yeaney’s vehicle.
5 10.
6 Uber can charge a cancellation fee under certain circumstances. Cancelling a ride request
7 and making the request again does not guarantee a different driver employee. Thus, while Ms.
8 Leggett did not feel comfortable seating in the front seat of Defendant Yeaney’s care, she felt as
9 though she had no effective alternative to sitting in the front seat.
10 11.
11 Shortly after Defendant Yeaney picking up Ms. Leggett on Uber’s app and after he began
12 driving, he began making sexual and inappropriate comments about Ms. Leggett’s body. He also
13 stated that he wanted to “take [Ms. Leggett] home” with him.
14 12.
15 While driving Ms. Leggett as directed by Defendant Uber, Defendant Yeaney touched
16 Ms. Leggett’s legs and breasts, unbuttoned her pants, and digitally penetrated her.
17 13.
18 Once they reached Ms. Leggett’s house, she managed to exit Defendant Yeaney’s car.
19 Ms. Leggett quickly went into her home and disclosed to her boyfriend what Defendant Yeaney
20 had done to her. Very shortly thereafter, Ms. Leggett called police. Within 90 minutes of arriving
21 home, Ms. Leggett was speaking with officers from Hillsboro police department. After speaking
22 with the officers, Ms. Leggett went to the emergency room at a local Kaiser Hospital to undergo
23 a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination.
24 14.
25 Ms. Leggett informed Uber of the incident the morning the of January 14, 2018.
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1 15.
2 On June 14, 2018, Defendant Yeaney was charged with the crimes of Unlawful
3 Penetration in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, Sexual Abuse in the Second
4 Degree, and Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree, for his abuse of Ms. Leggett.
5 16.
6 Since the abuse perpetrated by Defendant Yeaney, described above, Ms. Leggett has
7 suffered and continues to suffer regular nightmares, anxiety, stress, and fear.
8 17.
9 Ms. Leggett has incurred numerous losses related to the Defendant Yeaney’s abuse and
10 subsequent related events. Ms. Leggett has had to spend money on transportation to medical
11 appointments and the emergency room; medical expenses related to emergency room, follow-up
12 appointments, and counseling; and she has lost wages due to having to miss work for medical
13 issues and Defendant Yeaney’s criminal justice system process.
14 18.
15 Defendant Uber hired Defendant Yeaney as a driver employee. Defendant Uber claims to
16 have conducted a thorough background check on each of its drivers.
17 19.
18 Prior to the abuse he perpetrated on Ms. Leggett, described above, Defendant Yeaney
19 was employed by Defendant Uber for approximately two years.

20 20.
21 Following investigations by the States of Massachusetts and Maryland, Uber removed
22 language that it used the “gold-standard” in background checks from its websites.
23 21.
24 In Massachusetts, more than 10% of driver applicants failed the state screening even
25 though they passed Defendant Uber’s supposedly rigorous background screening. Maryland’s
26 system rejected 6% of applicants that had passed Uber’s screening.

Portland, OR 97232
1 22.
2 On information and belief, Defendant Uber’s screening process is shallow; it is designed
3 to, as cheaply as possible, clear more drivers to be able to drive to ensure Uber’s profitability.
4 23.
5 Defendant Uber places the burden of safety on the passengers, and not on its driver
6 employees. Defendant Uber directs passengers to a list of safety tips but does not require its
7 driver employees to pass safety courses, inspections, or certifications.
8 24.
9 Defendant Uber has a “no sex” rule but does not require its driver employees to receive
10 training relating to sexual harassment or sexual assault. On information and belief, Uber does not
11 provide training or instruction on how to avoid impermissible situations.
12 25.
13 Defendant Uber has no system in place to inspect or monitor the conditions of a driver
14 employee’s vehicle regarding passenger safety after the initial inspection of a vehicle.
15 26.
16 As of October 8, 2018, Defendant Uber encourages passengers to ride in the backseat
17 when riding alone with a driver employee but does not require its driver employees that they
18 must always allow passengers in the back seat. Uber requires driver employees to use a four-door
19 vehicle but places no requirements on the availability to passengers of the backseat.

20 27.
21 Defendant Yeaney did not allow Ms. Leggett to get in the backseat of his vehicle, despite
22 her desire to sit in the backseat.
23 28.
24 On information and belief, if Defendant Uber had required all drivers to permit
25 passengers to sit in the back seat, some or all of the abuse described above would have been
26 avoided or mitigated; Ms. Leggett would have sat in the backseat, out of the physical reach of

Portland, OR 97232
1 Defendant Yeaney. Defendant Uber has touted itself as a safe way for women who have been
2 drinking to get home.
3 29.
4 At the time of the abuse perpetrated by Defendant Yeaney, described above, Uber’s app
5 in the United Stated did not contain an emergency button for contacting 911. However, Uber’s
6 app in India contained a similar feature as early as 2015.
7 30.
8 Defendant Uber added the safety feature to the Uber app in India after several
9 governments in India prohibited Uber from continued operation after a high-profile rape case.
10 31.
Defendant Uber, in 2017, began to focus its study on the issue of sexual assaults during
11
12 Uber facilitated rides.
13 32.
14 Defendant Uber issued its first Safety Report on December 5, 2019. In its Safety Report,
15
Defendant Uber disclosed that 2,936 sexual assaults had occurred during Uber facilitated rides in
16
2017; 3,045 sexual assaults had occurred during Uber facilitated rides in 2018—the same year
17
Defendant Yeaney subject Ms. Leggett to sexual abuse and assault.
18
19 33.
20 Despite being on notice about the dangers posed by their under-qualified, under-vetted
21 driver employees, Defendant Uber did not implement an emergency button in the United States
22 app until mid-2018.
23 34.
24 On information and belief, the abuse perpetrated on Ms. Leggett may have been
25 avoidable or mitigated were she able to call emergency services quickly from Uber’s app.
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1 35.
2 Defendant Uber partnered with Mothers against Drunk Driving to issue a report
3 highlighting its ability to curtail drunk driving. Uber has marketed toward and targeted inebriated
4 women specifically. Uber promotes its service as a safe alternative to drunk driving.
5 36.
6 Defendant Uber uses this platform and its marketing to get passengers to rely on the
7 representation that Uber is safe. Defendant Uber is aware of this reliance by its users.
8 37.
9 However, Defendant Uber does not disclose to the potential passengers that it targets that
10 there are risks of being assaulted, which are often exasperated by drinking alcohol.
11 38.
12 Despite Uber’s public claims of safety, and safety as a priority, its terms of services
13 specifically state it does not guarantee safety.
14 39.
15 Defendant Uber knew or should have knew that its market and claims regarding safety
16 were misleading and misrepresentation the truth and their position.
17 40.
18 On information and belief, if Ms. Leggett had not seen any of Defendant Uber’s safety
19 marketing, or, alternatively had Ms. Leggett knew that Defendant Uber disclaimed any guarantee
20 of safety, the abuse Ms. Leggett was subjected to by Defendant Yeaney may have be avoided as
21 it is less likely that she would have chosen to use Uber’s app.
22 41.
23 If Ms. Leggett had not been subjected to Defendant Yeaney’s abuse, she would not have
24 suffered losses of transportation costs, medical costs, and lost wages.
25 42.
26 Defendant Uber retains the right to terminate any of its driver employee at will.

Portland, OR 97232
1 43.
2 Defendant Uber controls how much it pays its driver employees.
3 44.
4 Passengers pay Defendant Uber, not its driver employees.
5 45.
6 Defendant Uber pays its employees for the rides it directs them to make.
7 46.
8 Defendant Uber directs its driver employees which rides they give passengers. Driver
9 employees have limited ability to refuse; if a driver employee refuses too many rides, Defendant
10 Uber will terminate or suspect that driver employee.
11 47.
12 Defendant Uber does not allow driver employees to sub-contract their work.
13 48.
14 Defendant Uber prohibits its driver employees from giving rides to passengers outside of
15 the app—driver employees cannot pick up passengers that street hail them.
16 49.
17 Defendant Uber provides its driver employees with a suggested route to take to their
18 destination. Defendant Uber tracks its drivers to verify their routes and will investigate driver
19 employees that veer too far from suggested routes.

20 50.
21 Defendant Uber requires its driver employees to provide equipment to its specifications.
22 51.
23 Defendant Uber requires driver employees to utilize Uber’s app at all times that driver
24 employees are working for Uber.
25 ///
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
2 (Against both Defendants)
3 Assault
52.
4
Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1–44 as if set forth fully herein.
5
53.
6
Defendant Yeaney showed a clear intent to physically harm Plaintiff through his
7
statements, including that he wanted to take Plaintiff to his home.
8
54.
9
Plaintiff believed that she was at risk for imminent harm based on Defendant Yeaney’s
10
words and actions. Plaintiff reasonably believed she was going to suffer unwanted physical
11
contact.
12
55.
13
Defendant Yeaney was working for Defendant Uber at the time of the assault.
14
56.
15
Defendant Yeaney was within the scope of his employment at the time of the assault, as
16
the assault occurred during the drive that Defendant Uber directed him to complete.
17
57.
18
As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the
19
form of lost wages and medical bills, in a total estimated to be $250,000.00, but to be fully
20
determined at trial.
21
58.
22
As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
23
the form of apprehension and fear, in a total estimated to be $1,000,000.00 but to be fully
24
determined at trial.
25
///
26

Portland, OR 97232
1 59.
2 Defendant Uber is vicariously liable for Defendant Yeaney’s actions because Defendant
3 Uber employed Defendant Yeaney.
4 60.
5 Pursuant to ORS 82.010, Plaintiff is entitled to pre and post-judgment interest in the
6 amount of nine percent (9%) per annum.
7
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
8 (Against both Defendants)
9 Battery
61.
10
11
62.
12
Defendant Yeaney intended to offensively touch Plaintiff without her consent based on
13
his comments about her body and that he wanted to take her home.
14
63.
15
Defendant Yeaney offensively touched Plaintiff without her consent when he touched her
16
leg, unbuttoned her pants, and digitally penetrated her.
17
64.
18
Defendant Yeaney was working for Defendant Uber at the time of the battery.
19
65.
20
Defendant Yeaney was within the scope of his employment at the time of the battery, as
21
the battery occurred during the drive that Defendant Uber directed him to complete.
22
66.
23
As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the
24
form of medical costs, transportation costs, and lost wages, in an amount estimated to be
25
$250,000.00 but to be fully determined at trial.
26

Portland, OR 97232
1 67.
2 As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
3 the form of emotional distress, mental anguish, nightmares, loss of reputation, and stress, in an
4 amount estimated to be $1,000,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.
5 68.
6 Defendant Uber is vicariously liable for Defendant Yeaney’s actions because Defendant
7 Uber employed Defendant Yeaney.
8 69.
11
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 (Against Defendant Uber)
13 Negligence—Count One: Training
70.
14
15
71.
16
Defendant Uber was aware of the dangers associated with its services.
17
72.
18
Defendant Uber failed to implement any required training of its driver employees
19
regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault.
20
73.
21
Defendant Uber failed to train its drivers to always permit passengers sit in the back
22
seat—which it instructed passengers to do.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26

Portland, OR 97232
1 74.
2 Defendant Uber’s failure to train it driver employees caused Plaintiff injuries. If
3 Defendant Uber had trained its driver employees properly, Plaintiff would not have suffered the
4 injuries complained of herein.
5 75.
6 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the
7 form of medical costs, transportation costs, and lost wages, in an amount estimated to be
8 $250,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.
9 76.
10 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
13 77.
16
(Against Defendant Uber)
17 Negligence—Count two: Failure to Implement Policy
18 78.
19 Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1–44 as if set forth fully herein.
20 79.
21 Defendant Uber was aware of the dangers associated with its services.
22 80.
23 Defendant Uber failed to implement any policy requiring its drivers to take classes or
24 programs regarding sexual harassment or sexual assault.
25 ///
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1 81.
2 Defendant Uber failed to implement a policy that its driver employees must permit
3 passengers to sit in the backseat.
4 82.
5 Defendant Uber failed to implement its emergency button in the United States in a timely
6 manner, despite having the technology available prior to the events complained of herein.
7 83.
8 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the
11 84.
12 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
15 85.
18
Negligence—Count three: Common Carrier
19 (Both Defendants)
20 Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1–44 as if set forth fully herein.
21 86.
22 Defendant Uber was aware of the dangers associated with its services.
23 87.
24 Defendant Uber offers services of transporting persons with motor vehicles through its
25 driver employees.
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1 88.
2 Defendant Uber is a for-hire carrier as defined in ORS 825.005(7)(a).
3 89.
4 Defendant Uber is common carrier as defined in ORS 823.701(3).
5 90.
6 Defendant Yeaney offered services of transporting persons with motor vehicles through
7 his employment with Defendant Uber.
8 91.
9 Defendant Yeaney was a for-hire carrier as defined in ORS 825.005(7)(a).
10 92.
11 Defendant Yeaney was common carrier as defined in ORS 823.701(3).
12 93.
13 Under Oregon law, common carriers owe their passengers the highest degree of care and
14 skill practicable for it to exercise.
15 94.
16 Defendant Uber had the skill to implement better policy and features based on their own
17 safety tips and features in other regions.
18 95.
19 Defendant Yeaney had been a for-hire carrier for at least two years prior to the events
20 complained of herein.
21 96.
22 Defendant Uber failed its duty of care as a common carrier when it failed to protect
23 Plaintiff, when it failed to implement reasonable safety policies, and when it failed to properly
24 train its driver employees.
25 97.
26 Defendant Uber’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

Portland, OR 97232
1 98.
2 Defendant Yeaney’s negligence caused Plaintiff’s injuries.
3 99.
4 As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the
7 100.
8 As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in
11 101.
14 ///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///

Portland, OR 97232
1 JURY DEMAND
2 102.
3 Plaintiff demands a jury trial for this action.
4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the relief as set forth in this Complaint, together with
5 such other relief that the Court finds just and equitable.
6 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
7 1. Economic Damages in the amount of $25,000.00 or an amount to be proven at trial;
8 2. Non-economic Damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 or an amount to be proven at
9 trial;
10 3. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend in include punitive damages pursuant to ORS
11 ORS 31.725 – 31.730;
12 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
15 trial;
17 ORS 31.725 – 31.730;
18 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
19 Count One – Training

22 trial;
24 ORS 31.725 – 31.730;
25 Count Two – Failure to Implement Policy

Portland, OR 97232
2 trial;
4 ORS 31.725 – 31.730;
5 Count Three – Common Carrier
8 trial;
10 ORS 31.725 – 31.730;
11
12 DATED this 6th day of January, 2020.
13
14
By: /s/ Erin Greenawald
15 Erin Greenawald, OSB No. 990542
16
By: /s/ Sean J. Riddell
17 Sean J. Riddell, OSB No. 013943
18 Portland, Oregon 97232
Telephone: (971) 219 – 8453
19 E-mail: sean.riddell@live.com
E-mail: esglaw1@gmail.com
20 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff
21
22
23
24
25
26

Portland, OR 97232

Uber Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Uber Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/7/2020 10:44 AM

4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

2 Defendant Wosey Yeaney (“Defendant Yeaney” or “Yeaney”), on information and belief,

3 is a resident of Washington County, Oregon.

13 alcoholic beverages resulting in Ms. Leggett becoming intoxicated.

26 requested destination—her home.

Page 2 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

9 though she had no effective alternative to sitting in the front seat.

13 stated that he wanted to “take [Ms. Leggett] home” with him.

23 a Sexual Assault Forensic Examination.

Page 3 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

13 issues and Defendant Yeaney’s criminal justice system process.

16 have conducted a thorough background check on each of its drivers.

19 was employed by Defendant Uber for approximately two years.

21 Following investigations by the States of Massachusetts and Maryland, Uber removed

26 system rejected 6% of applicants that had passed Uber’s screening.

Page 4 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 On information and belief, Defendant Uber’s screening process is shallow; it is designed

7 driver employees to pass safety courses, inspections, or certifications.

11 provide training or instruction on how to avoid impermissible situations.

16 As of October 8, 2018, Defendant Uber encourages passengers to ride in the backseat

19 vehicle but places no requirements on the availability to passengers of the backseat.

22 her desire to sit in the backseat.

Page 5 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 drinking to get home.

6 app in India contained a similar feature as early as 2015.

12 Uber facilitated rides.

Page 6 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

13 specifically state it does not guarantee safety.

16 were misleading and misrepresentation the truth and their position.

24 suffered losses of transportation costs, medical costs, and lost wages.

Page 7 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 Defendant Uber controls how much it pays its driver employees.

4 Passengers pay Defendant Uber, not its driver employees.

10 Uber will terminate or suspect that driver employee.

19 employees that veer too far from suggested routes.

24 employees are working for Uber.

Page 8 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

Page 9 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

3 Uber employed Defendant Yeaney.

6 amount of nine percent (9%) per annum.

Page 10 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 As a result of Defendant Yeaney’s actions, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in

4 amount estimated to be $1,000,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.

7 Uber employed Defendant Yeaney.

10 amount of nine percent (9%) per annum.

Page 11 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 Defendant Uber’s failure to train it driver employees caused Plaintiff injuries. If

4 injuries complained of herein.

6 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the

8 $250,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.

10 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in

12 amount estimated to be $1,000,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.

15 amount of nine percent (9%) per annum.

Page 12 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

3 passengers to sit in the backseat.

8 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered economic damages in the

10 $250,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.

12 As a result of Defendant Uber’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered non-economic damages in

14 amount estimated to be $1,000,000.00, but to be fully determined at trial.

17 amount of nine percent (9%) per annum.

Page 13 – COMPLAINT Greenawald Law LLC

2 Defendant Uber is a for-hire carrier as defined in ORS 825.005(7)(a).