Background
Lewis Adeyemi Bandele was stopped at a red light when a vehicle driven by Wander Zapata struck him from behind. The vehicle was owned by taxi-company defendants, while Zapata was allegedly working through the Uber platform. Bandele sued Zapata, the vehicle owners, and several Uber entities, including Rasier-NY, Uber USA, Uber Technologies, and Rasier-CA.
The Uber defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the claim that they were vicariously liable for Zapata’s negligence. They argued that Zapata was an independent contractor rather than their employee. Bandele separately moved for summary judgment on liability against Zapata and the taxi defendants.
Supreme Court granted the Uber defendants’ motion and denied Bandele’s liability motion. The appeal required the Second Department to assess both the evidence of Uber’s control over the driver and Zapata’s claimed nonnegligent explanation that an unexpected brake failure caused the rear-end collision.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Department modified the order in Bandele’s favor. The Uber defendants had not eliminated factual disputes about whether they exercised sufficient control over Zapata to support vicarious liability. Evidence bearing on platform access, trip assignments, performance standards, and the practical relationship between the entities and driver prevented the court from resolving worker status as a matter of law.
The panel also granted Bandele summary judgment on liability against Zapata and the taxi defendants. Proof that Bandele’s vehicle was stopped at a red signal when struck from behind established a prima facie negligence case. A rear driver may rebut that showing with a nonnegligent explanation, but Zapata’s vague, conclusory assertion of brake failure was insufficient.
A brake-failure defense requires evidence both that the problem was unanticipated and that reasonable care had been used to keep the brakes in working order. Zapata and the owners offered no adequate maintenance evidence. The ruling therefore established their liability while leaving the Uber entities’ responsibility for that negligence to be resolved on the disputed control record.
Key Takeaways
- Rideshare companies seeking summary judgment on independent-contractor grounds must eliminate factual disputes about their practical control over drivers.
- A bare assertion of sudden brake failure does not defeat summary judgment after a rear-end collision; maintenance and lack-of-notice evidence are necessary.
- The driver’s negligence and the platform entities’ vicarious responsibility are distinct issues and can reach different procedural outcomes in the same case.
Why It Matters
For New York transportation companies, insurers, and personal-injury lawyers, Bandele shows why contract labels alone may not resolve app-based worker status. The relevant record concerns actual control, including how trips are offered, how performance is monitored, and what consequences follow from platform rules.
The decision also supplies a practical discovery roadmap. Plaintiffs should seek platform agreements, operational policies, trip data, communications, and deactivation standards. Fleet owners relying on mechanical failure should preserve inspection and repair records. The opinion does not finally classify Zapata, but it prevents the Uber defendants from ending the vicarious-liability claim before trial.