The new ruling holds that DoorDash owed a duty to a driver injured in a crash involving a Dasher, based on allegations that the platform encourages drivers to use its app and rush through deliveries.
An Indiana appeals court has ruled that DoorDash may be held responsible for injuries caused by a driver who ran a stop sign while on his way to make a delivery. The ruling is notable because the court found DoorDash’s business model could have encouraged distracted driving by requiring its drivers to use its app while on the road. The court concluded that the on-demand delivery platform may have a duty to protect the public from the dangers that could result from conducting DoorDash’s business operations through its app.
In a unanimous Sept. 18 ruling, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the Porter Superior Court’s partial judgment on the pleadings, which found DoorDash did not owe a duty of general care to individuals injured by the actions of delivery drivers working as independent contractors. The case was brought by a driver who was severely injured when a DoorDash driver ran a stop sign. The lower court also denied an injured driver’s motions to compel discovery from DoorDash.
Many courts have found that drivers for DoorDash and other delivery services are independent contractors and often find their employer is not liable for their actions. However, the Indiana court based its ruling on the fact that DoorDash drivers, known as “Dashers," have no option but to use the app. Therefore, DoorDash may have encouraged distracted or otherwise dangerous driving. The case returns to the Porter Superior Court, which must deny DoorDash’s Rule 12(C) motion and reconsider Oller’s discovery motions, but does not address questions related to whether the injured driver’s claims against the company had any merit.
Driver Ran Stop Sign During a Delivery
Just before 5 p.m. on July 31, 2020, DoorDash driver Trey Culvey disregarded a stop sign during a food delivery and struck the side of a pickup truck driven by Brian Oller. The impact caused Oller’s truck to roll and he was ejected from the vehicle. Witnesses to the collision dragged him from underneath the truck and resuscitated him. Culvey left the scene on foot to complete his DoorDash delivery.
Oller survived the accident and sued both Culvey and DoorDash in June of 2022. He contended that DoorDash was vicariously liable for Culvey’s negligence and the delivery service was also independently liable for negligence.
Business Model Requires Cell Phone Use
In his lawsuit, Oller claimed DoorDash’s business model is based on delivering food, beverages, and other items from restaurants and stores. He contends the compensation structure provides an economic incentive for drivers to complete deliveries as quickly as possible because the more deliveries they make, the more they are paid. Additionally, drivers can take on another order only after they deliver the previous one. Tips also depend on how quickly the driver makes the delivery.
During the delivery, DoorDash communicates with drivers through its mobile app and cell phones. The app allows drivers to receive and accept orders and communicate with customers, DoorDash, and restaurants. DoorDash encourages drivers to contact customers directly to update order status, and the company sends drivers texts, Oller claims. The app includes a navigation feature that identifies the best route for the driver to take.
Oller argues that DoorDash’s business model financially encourages drivers to operate their vehicles as quickly as possible while relying exclusively on their cell phones. He also claims DoorDash does not require drivers to follow any specific policies or procedures for operating a motor vehicle while using a cellular device.
Trial Court Finds No Independent Negligence
The independent negligence claim rested on Oller’s contention that DoorDash owed a duty to the general public to act reasonably and safely and not cause harm to other individuals or property through its business practices. Oller claimed DoorDash breached that duty by designing and maintaining a business model that encourages and incentivizes distracted or otherwise unsafe driving. He also maintained that the company designed its mobile app to require DoorDash drivers to use it while driving, but it provides no safeguard against distracted driving.
DoorDash filed a motion under Indiana Trial Rule 12(C) for partial judgment on the pleadings, claiming it does not owe a duty to motorists like Oliver with respect to its business and business practices. After DoorDash filed its Rule 12(C) motion, Oller filed motions to compel discovery from DoorDash.
The trial court granted DoorDash’s Rule 12(C) motion and denied Oller’s motion to compel because granting the motion “significantly altered the landscape of discovery.”
DoorDash: No Duty to Protect Other Drivers
A Rule 12(C) motion tests whether the pleadings are legally sufficient, the appeals court said. As with the trial court, the appeals court based its ruling on the Rule 12(C) motion solely on the facts in the pleadings and accepted the allegations in a complaint as being true. Oller argued that when ruling on the motion, the court should apply the test the Indiana Supreme Court laid out in Webb v. Jarvis (Ind. 1991). That test requires the court to balance three factors:
- The relationship of the parties
- The reasonable foreseeability of harm to the injured person
- Public policy concerns
DoorDash claimed the Webb test was unnecessary because the question of whether it owed a duty to Oller had been resolved by the court of appeals in Williams v. Cingular Wireless (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The Williams ruling found that Cingular was not liable for an accident based on a claim that it should have foreseen that the company’s cell phones would be used while driving.
DoorDash contends Williams established the rule that a third-party technology company does not owe a duty to the general driving public with regard to a product a driver chooses to use while driving. Based on that rule, DoorDash maintains that the Webb test does not apply in Oller’s case.
DoorDash Requires Drivers to Use its App
The appeals court explained that the Williams court applied the fact-specific Webb test to find that Cingular did not owe a duty of care to a driver when it provided a cell phone the driver could use while operating a vehicle. It said the Williams decision was not a broad conclusion that all third-party technology companies owe no duty of care to the driving public, regardless of their product.
Additionally, the court found that DoorDash does not just make its app available to the general public, like Cingular did with its cell phones. The company requires and provides financial incentives for drivers to use the app while making deliveries through the DoorDash platform. The complaint says Culvey did not have the option not to use the DoorDash app, and the accident was not solely the result of choices similar to those made by the driver in Williams.
Because Williams does not answer whether DoorDash owed a duty to Oller, the appeals court applied the Webb test by assuming all allegations in the complaint are true. Applying the Webb test, the court found:
- The fact DoorDash places drivers on public roads with the general public is sufficient to establish an indirect relationship with Oller, even if it is weak.
- It is reasonably foreseeable that DoorDash’s business model and app would lead to an accident between one of its drivers and a motorist.
- Indiana drivers have a reasonable and justifiable expectation that delivery network companies like DoorDash will operate in a reasonably safe manner and not encourage and provide financial incentives for distracted or dangerous driving.
After weighing the Webb factors, the appeals court found the foreseeability of harm and the public policy concerns outweighed the weak nature of the relationship and concluded that DoorDash owed Oller a general duty of protection from the risks of its business model.
Ruling Could Encourage Additional Lawsuits
Oller is distinctive because it targets the company’s operating model itself. The Indiana Court of Appeals’ finding that DoorDash could be liable because its Dashers must use the app while driving and are incentivized to drive as quickly as possible may encourage similar suits from other accident victims. However, because an Indiana state court made the decision, it may not have much impact beyond its borders. Courts in other states are free to disregard its reasoning, especially since the appeals court relied heavily on other Indiana court decisions in its conclusions.
Additionally, while the appeals court found it was possible that Oller could show DoorDash had a duty to protect other drivers, it left the question of whether he actually owed the duty to the trial court when it remanded the case. On remand, the trial court will address the remaining issues, including discovery, whether DoorDash breached its duty, and whether that breach caused Oller’s injuries. The appeals court based its conclusions on the parties' arguments, not the evidence, and he may not be able to prove his claims to the district court's satisfaction.
