Common‑Law Causes of Action Eliminated by Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc.

(Unless tied to a statutory violation)**

1. Negligent Hiring

Any claim that Lyft/Uber owed a common‑law duty to hire safe drivers is barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently hired a driver with a history of reckless driving.”

Why eliminated: The statute defines the duty (background check). Common‑law hiring duties are preempted.

2. Negligent Retention

Claims that Lyft should have removed a dangerous driver based on complaints or prior incidents are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently retained a driver despite multiple passenger complaints.”

Why eliminated: Only statutory disqualification duties survive.

3. Negligent Supervision

General allegations that Lyft failed to supervise or monitor drivers are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently supervised its drivers and failed to ensure safe operation.”

Why eliminated: The statute does not impose a supervision duty; common‑law supervision is preempted.

4. Negligent Training

Claims that Lyft should have trained drivers better (safe driving, passenger handling, emergency procedures) are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently failed to train its drivers on passenger safety.”

Why eliminated: The statute imposes no training duty; common‑law training duties are preempted.

5. Negligent Failure to Protect Passengers

Claims that Lyft owed a common‑law duty to protect passengers from foreseeable harm (driver assault, reckless driving, unsafe conditions) are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently failed to protect the passenger from the driver’s violent behavior.”

Why eliminated: Only statutory background‑check and zero‑tolerance duties survive.

6. Negligent Failure to Warn

Claims that Lyft should have warned passengers about risks associated with rideshare use are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently failed to warn passengers that drivers may have criminal histories.”

7. Negligent Safety Representations

Claims that Lyft negligently represented its rides as “safe,” “secure,” or “professionally vetted” are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently advertised that its rides were safe.”

Why eliminated: Haddad held that misrepresentation claims arising from the ride fall within statutory immunity.

8. Negligent Operation of a Transportation Service

Claims that Lyft negligently operated its rideshare platform or transportation network are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently operated its service by allowing unsafe vehicles on the road.”

9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

NIED claims arising from the ride are barred unless tied to statutory violations.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently caused emotional distress by allowing an unsafe driver to transport the plaintiff.”

10. Negligent Failure to Implement Additional Safety Measures

Claims that Lyft should have done “more” than the statute requires — enhanced background checks, in‑car cameras, stricter monitoring — are barred.

Example:

• “Lyft negligently failed to install in‑vehicle cameras to protect passengers.”

Why eliminated: Haddad expressly rejected negligence theories based on duties beyond the statute.

11. Negligent Misrepresentation & Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Claims based on Lyft’s marketing, app statements, or website assurances are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently misrepresented that its drivers were thoroughly vetted.”

12. Vicarious Liability for Driver Negligence or Misconduct

Common‑law vicarious liability theories are barred unless the TNC owned or was bailee of the vehicle.

Example:

“Lyft is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle.”

The Haddad Court framed the facts of the case as follows:

“Louise Haddad claims she was assaulted by her Lyft driver. She sued Lyft for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging that statements on its website led her to believe that the ride would be safe, thus leading to the personal injuries she suffered at the hands of the driver.”

Lyft argued that section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022) (“Subsection 18”), provided it with immunity against her claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022), provides:

Vicarious liability.—

(a) A TNC is not liable under general law by reason of owning, operating, or maintaining the digital network accessed by a TNC driver or rider, or by being the TNC affiliated with a TNC driver, for harm to persons or property which results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle operating as a TNC vehicle while the driver is logged on to the digital network if:

1. There is no negligence under this section or criminal wrongdoing under the federal or Florida criminal code on the part of the TNC;

2. The TNC has fulfilled all of its obligations under this section with respect to the TNC driver; and

3. The TNC is not the owner or bailee of the motor vehicle that caused harm to persons or property.

(b) This subsection does not alter or reduce the coverage or policy limits of the insurance requirements under subsection (7) or the liability of any person other than the vicarious liability of a TNC as described in paragraph (a).

Florida Statute § 627.748 governs Transportation Network Companies—such as Uber and Lyft—and establishes the regulatory framework applicable to their operations in Florida.

Section 627.748(12) delineates the exclusive statutory duties imposed on transportation network companies. These are the specific obligations incorporated by reference in Section 627.748(18)(a)2. A rideshare company may be held liable for negligence only if it breaches one or more of these enumerated duties and that statutory breach proximately causes the claimant’s harm. In other words, liability now arises solely from statutory‑based negligence, not from any general‑law tort theory.

Although Florida law classifies rideshare drivers as independent contractors rather than employees of transportation network companies, § 627.748(12) nevertheless imposes a suite of mandatory safety, screening, and operational duties on TNCs that closely resemble the oversight obligations traditionally associated with employers. In effect, the Legislature has required TNCs to conduct background checks, verify driver eligibility, maintain specified insurance, and enforce safety‑related policies even in the absence of an employer‑employee relationship.

This statutory structure parallels § 768.096, which affords employers a rebuttable presumption against negligent hiring when they perform the background investigation prescribed by that statute. Although § 627.748(12) establishes a distinct, TNC‑specific set of screening and safety requirements, both provisions reflect a common legislative judgment: compliance with defined background‑check and vetting duties serves as a liability shield, while noncompliance exposes the entity to negligence claims grounded in statutory breach.

Neither Haddad nor § 627.748(18) disturb the mandatory insurance protections in § 627.748(7), which continue to provide coverage for injuries caused by a rideshare driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle while logged on to the digital network. These insurance obligations remain fully intact, even though tort claims against the TNC itself are largely barred.

*************************************************

Contact us today at (305) 758-4900 or by email for a free consultation to learn your legal rights. If we accept your case, we will represent you on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay no upfront costs. Our fee is collected only if we obtain a favorable recovery on your behalf. If there is no recovery, you owe nothing.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Our firm is always grateful for the many cases we receive through referrals from fellow attorneys, and we routinely pay referral fees to our referring counsel in accordance with applicable ethical rules.