The submission was entered in In re: Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, No. 3:23-md-03084, before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California. The bellwether, WHB 823 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., is docketed in the Northern District of California as No. 24-cv-4900 and in the Western District of North Carolina as No. 25-cv-737.
On the liability question, the proposed instruction reads: "In this case, Plaintiff claims that her Uber driver, Jeffrey Richardson, touched her sexually without her consent. Uber is liable if the driver committed either an assault or a battery against her."
The three Uber entities named as defendants — Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and Rasier-CA, LLC — would be treated as one for purposes of the verdict under the proposed instructions. "In evaluating the evidence against the Uber Defendants, you should treat these three Defendants as if they are a single Defendant," the proposed instruction states. "Your verdict must be the same as to all of the Uber Defendants."
The proposed damages instruction limits the window jurors could consider. "Plaintiff is only claiming personal injury during the 24-hour period immediately following the assault or battery she alleges—between 1:53 a.m. on March 26 and 1:53 a.m. on March 27," it provides. Jurors "may not speculate about or award damages for any personal injury Plaintiff might have sustained before or after that period."
The proposed instructions would bar punitive damages. "You must not include in your award any damages to punish or make an example of Uber," one instruction states. "Such damages would be punitive damages, and they cannot be a part of your verdict." If the jury found liability but no proven actual damages, it would be directed to award a nominal sum "such as 'One Dollar.'"
Because the underlying case came from a Fourth Circuit district, the procedural portions draw on Ninth Circuit templates. "Because the Fourth Circuit does not offer pattern jury instructions, the parties formulated the procedural instructions based on Ninth Circuit model instructions as given by the Court in the Dean trial," the filing explains.
Uber preserved its defenses in the submission. "By submitting these proposed instructions, Uber does not waive any defenses or arguments; nor does it concede there is any fact issue on any question pertaining to either liability or damages," the filing states. "Uber submits it is entitled to a take-nothing judgment."
The proposed assault instruction requires the plaintiff to prove that Richardson, "by an intentional act or display of force and violence[,] threatened the Plaintiff with an imminent bodily injury" and that the act or display "caused the Plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension that offensive contact with her person was imminent." The proposed battery instruction requires proof that Richardson "intentionally caused bodily contact" that "actually offended a reasonable sense of personal dignity" and "occurred without the Plaintiff's consent."