BlogLine

Eastern District of Pennsylvania restricts employers’ liability for acts of violence by employees

3/14/25

By: James M. Mathew

Recently, in Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting in Philadelphia, dismissed a claim of negligent hiring, supervision, and training against Uber Technologies Inc. and Raiser, LLC, ruling that employers are not automatically liable for assaults committed by their employees. 

Darryl Holloway, the plaintiff in this case, requested a ride through the Uber app. The driver struggled to find Holloway for 30 minutes. When the driver eventually found Holloway, the driver allegedly began to curse at him and then allegedly punched him in the head and shoved him. The driver left the scene before police arrived.  

Plaintiff’s claim against Uber and Raiser was based on respondeat superior and negligent hiring, supervision, and training. After his complaint was dismissed, Holloway filed an amended complaint and later a second amended complaint. After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the Court ruled in favor of the defendants. The Court identified four factors to consider when determining whether an act is within the scope of employment: 

1. It is of a kind and nature that the employee is employed to perform; 

2. It occurs within the employee’s authorized time and space limits; 

3. It is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer; and 

4. If force is used, its use is not unexpected by the employer. 

The Court found that the action(s) of violence by the driver were not the kind of acts he was employed to perform. The act did not serve the employers, and that the force could not be expected by the employers, the Court dismissed Holloway’s respondeat superior claims.   

When dismissing the negligent hiring, supervision, and training claim, the Court determined that Holloway did not plead facts sufficient to show the employers should have known of the driver’s violent propensities. Although Holloway alleges prior traffic court judgments and violations, these are not the kind of prior actions that would put Uber and Raiser on notice of violence tendencies.  

The attorneys at Freeman Mathis & Gary are highly skilled at defending negligent hiring claims. For more information on this case or for advice regarding defending employer liability for the actions of employees, feel free to contact James M. Mathew (james.mathew@fmglaw.com) or your local FMG attorney.