In Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. the case in the text in which two victims sued Uber Technologies alleging separate sexual assaults on rides they received from Uber drivers and whether or not those drivers were employees or independent contractors. The court held that:
A) That Uber drivers are independent contractors who do not hold the same status as an employee for purposes of vicarious liability.
B) That the assault occurred outside the scope of employment so that Uber was allowed to dismiss the case.
C) That although the assault did not occur within the scope of the driver's employment, Uber was vicariously liable for the act because the assault was criminal nature.
D) That even though the Uber drivers are considered independent contractors, Uber can still be vicariously liable because Uber knew of the criminal act but did nothing.
E) For the purpose of surviving a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the Uber drivers were acting within the scope of employment when they assaulted plaintiffs.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that for the purpose of surviving a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the Uber drivers were acting within the scope of employment when they assaulted the plaintiffs.

In Doe V Uber Technologies, Inc