When a young man planning to go to graduate school and earn a psychology degree saw a ride request pop up on his Lyft app, he probably figured the fare would get him one step closer to being able to pay for his dream. Instead, it turned out to be a nightmare in the form of a trap that cost him his life.
A St. Louis Circuit Judge had dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit filed by Andrew Ameer's mother against Lyft. On March 4, 2025, the Missouri Court of Appeals overturned the decision, sending the case back to the St. Louis Circuit Court for what could be a landmark decision regarding the responsibilities and liabilities of ride-share companies.
The Drive To Succeed
Like many people who wanted extra income or needed a flexible job schedule, Andrew Ameer turned to the gig economy and became a rideshare operator for Lyft. Through their app, Lyft and other ride-share companies receive ride requests and channel them to their drivers, who are not considered employees but rather independent contractors.
On September 28, 2020, Ameer accepted a fare through the Lyft app at around 11 p.m. When he arrived at the pickup location, he was met by two teenagers. They pulled guns, telling Ameer this was a carjacking and ordering him to exit his vehicle. He was shot multiple times and died from his wounds at a hospital.
The police apprehended the shooter and his accomplices. They were minors who had created a Lyft account on the app using a false name and a false email address. They secured the ride with an anonymous and untraceable gift card.
According to Lyft's safety policies, account holders must be at least 18 years of age. The fact that Ameer's juvenile murderers were able to easily circumvent Lyft's safeguards to create what appeared to be a legitimate account formed the basis for the wrongful death suit.
Oh, It's a Product
In her lawsuit, Rochelle Ameer argued that her son's death was preventable and a direct result of Lyft's app. Using a fake account to lure a driver for robbery and carjacking has been a recurring issue for rideshares, along with other problems due to insufficient safety protocols.
Some states require rideshare apps to verify an account holder's identity if they're going to make an anonymous payment, such as through a gift card. Missouri does not carry that requirement. Lyft has not independently created such a system in the state.
A common legal defense used by rideshare companies has been declaring that their platform is not a product but rather a form of technology designed to perform a task. Until the ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, the argument had held water and proved an effective means of thwarting lawsuits.
Those days may have come to an end. By declaring that Lyft's app is indeed a product, the Missouri Court of Appeals has opened the door for litigation over product liability.
Better Fasten Your Seatbelt
Ameer v. Lyft may turn out to be a landmark decision for future cases against rideshare companies if other courts agree with its reasoning. The lawsuit carries strict product liability claims of defective design, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn. It also charges three counts of negligence.
While the appeals court ruled with a narrow focus on the particulars of this case, and is applicable only in Missouri, it stands the chance of setting an important precedent for other claims against rideshare apps. Fallout from the case may also bring about increased safety measures for drivers and passengers, such as in-car cameras and a security barrier between them. Both would help toward helping everyone get home safely.
Related Resources
- Wrongful Death Overview (FindLaw's Accidents and Injuries Legal Guide)
- What Is an Unavoidably Unsafe Product? (FindLaw's Product Liability Law)
- Can I Sue a Rideshare Company as a Driver on the Road? (FindLaw's Litigation and Appeals)
