California Uber & Lyft Accident Laws: The Complete Guide to Every Rideshare Legal Authority

A plain-English index of every California statute, regulation and court decision governing Uber, Lyft and Rideshare collision, injury and wrongful death claims — current law plus historical background (as of time of preparation).

Prepared by the Law Offices of Gary K. Walch, A Law Corporation

If you were hurt — or lost a loved one with a wrongful death claim — in an Uber, Lyft or other rideshare (Transportation Network Company / TNC) collision in Los Angeles, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, Calabasas or anywhere in California, the law that controls your claim is spread across the Public Utilities Code (PUC), the Insurance Code, the Business and Professions Code, the Labor Code, the Vehicle Code, the Code of Civil Procedure, California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) decisions, and California/federal case law. This Guide organizes every authority we rely on, grouped by what is legally operative today and what came before it.

Part 1A — California Codes & Statutes Currently in Effect

These are the enacted, codified California statutes (laws and code sections) that govern Uber, Lyft and other rideshare operations, insurance, driver classification and civil liability today.

Transportation Network Company (TNC) Licensing & Operation

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Public Utilities Code §§ 5430–5450 (the “TNC Act”)

Passenger Charter-Party Carriers’ Act, Division 2, Chapter 8, Article 7 — originally enacted by AB 2293 (2014); amended repeatedly through 2025

“‘Transportation network company’ means an organization … operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform to connect passengers with drivers using a personal vehicle.” — Pub. Util. Code § 5431(c)

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
This is the core statute that legally defines Uber and Lyft as “transportation network companies” (TNCs) — not taxis, not employers of drivers, but a distinct regulated category. Section 5431 defines “participating driver,” “personal vehicle,” and “TNC insurance.” Section 5445.1 of the California Public Utilities Code requires the app to disclose the driver’s name, photo, and license plate before the ride, which is often the first evidence pulled in a case. Section 5445.4 requires TNCs to make drivers complete a recurring safety course. Every liability theory against Uber or Lyft — negligent driver, negligent hiring, inadequate background check, insurance gap — starts by anchoring the defendant’s legal status under this article.

Rideshare Insurance Coverage

STATUTE — IN EFFECT (amended 1/1/2026)

California Public Utilities Code § 5433 — TNC Insurance Requirements

As amended by SB 371 (Stats. 2025, ch. 314), effective January 1, 2026

(b) “… from the moment a participating driver accepts a ride request … until the driver completes the transaction … or until the ride is complete, whichever is later: (1) Transportation network company insurance shall be primary and in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for death, personal injury, and property damage. … (2) A transportation network company shall provide uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) per person and three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) per incident from the moment a passenger enters the vehicle … until the passenger exits the vehicle.”

(c) “… from the moment a participating driver logs on … until the driver accepts a request to transport a passenger … Transportation network company insurance shall be primary and in the amount of at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for death and personal injury per person, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for death and personal injury per incident, and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for property damage. … (2) … excess coverage … in the amount of at least two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) per occurrence.”

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Section 5433 of the PUC is the single most important statute in almost every rideshare injury case because it creates three (3) distinct “insurance periods” based on the driver’s app status at the moment of the crash:

Identifying which “period” a driver was in at the instant of the collision is often the first and most contested question in a rideshare case, because it determines whether a $1 million Uber/Lyft policy applies or only a much smaller policy. Subdivision (e) is also critical: if the driver’s own required policy has lapsed, the TNC itself must pay “beginning with the first dollar of a claim,” closing what used to be an insurance gap. Subdivision (f) confirms the statute does not cap a jury verdict against Uber or Lyft — it only sets minimum insurance, not a liability ceiling.

Driver Classification — Employee vs. Independent Contractor

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Business & Professions Code §§ 7448–7467 (esp. § 7451) — Proposition 22

Enacted by voters, November 2020; codified after Castellanos v. State of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 588, upheld its constitutionality

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law … an app-based driver is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent” of the network company, provided the statutory conditions on scheduling, exclusivity, and pricing are met. — Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451 (paraphrased operative rule)

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Because Prop 22 classifies qualifying rideshare drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, Uber and Lyft argue this insulates them from ordinary respondeat superior (vicarious liability for an employee’s negligence). Others contend Prop 22 simply means rideshare drivers are not employees with respect to benefits such as workers’ compensation coverage, minimum wage, paid sick leave, overtime, etc., and it does not affect liability and the rideshare company’s responsibility. Further, it does not eliminate the company’s liability for its own negligence (e.g., inadequate background checks, defective app design, failure to deactivate a dangerous driver, etc.) or its statutory insurance obligations under § 5433. Skilled counsel pursues direct-negligence and statutory-insurance theories against the rideshare company itself, separate from any employment argument.

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Labor Code §§ 2775–2787 — The “ABC Test” (AB 5)

Effective January 1, 2020; codifies Dynamex; TNC drivers carved out by Prop 22

A worker is an employee unless the hiring entity proves: “(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity… (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.”

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
This is the general California test for who counts as an “employee.” It still governs most other gig-economy and contractor-misclassification disputes, but Business & Professions Code § 7451 (Prop 22) specifically exempts qualifying app-based rideshare and delivery drivers from it. Understanding this interplay matters when a driver does not meet Prop 22’s conditions (for example, a driver who is functionally controlled like an employee) — the above ABC test can still come back into play.

General Negligence & Civil Liability

Regardless of the driver’s independent-contractor status, California law specifically requires the TNC to maintain automobile liability insurance protecting the public.

Business & Professions Code §7455(f)(2) expressly incorporates the TNC liability insurance requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

There is a subtle but significant difference between saying:

“Uber is not vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence.”

and saying:

“Uber’s insurance does not cover the driver’s negligence.”

Those are not the same proposition.

The first is a substantive tort-liability/agency question going back to Proposition 22 and B&P §7451.

The second is an insurance-coverage question.

California’s TNC statutes specifically require the latter coverage even though Prop. 22 establishes the driver as an independent contractor. Section 7455 requires the TNC to maintain the public liability protection. An analogy might be to an at-fault car collision where the driver is at fault but the vehicle owner, even if not present like the rideshare company, is required and responsible to maintain minimum insurance. The following Q and A may also be useful:

So at the time of preparation there is a significant legal dispute over whether Prop. 22’s “not an employee or agent” language eliminates Uber/Lyft’s traditional vicarious liability to third parties or whether it simply applies to employee work benefits and not liability. It is not settled, but notwithstanding that issue TNC insurance requirements still apply! This further analysis may assist:

1. The critical distinction: employment law versus tort law

Business & Professions Code §7451 states that, if the statutory conditions are met, an app-based driver is an independent contractor “and not an employee or agent” with respect to the driver’s relationship with the network company.

That language is extraordinarily broad.

Uber’s position in current litigation is essentially:

Prop. 22 states the driver isn’t Uber’s employee or agent, therefore the traditional doctrine of respondeat superior cannot make Uber vicariously liable for the driver’s negligence. That is very simple, but was it the intent of Prop 22? Did voters even realize this issue much less approve it?

There is now a 2026 Superior Court ruling in Wang v. Uber in San Francisco in which Uber expressly made that argument, contending that §7451 displaced the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior.

But there is a major counterargument:

§7451 is a worker-classification statute. It was enacted as part of a statute dealing with app-based driver independence, compensation and employment benefits. It does not expressly say, “A network company shall not be vicariously liable in tort for the negligence of an app-based driver.”

As such, Prop 22 should be limited to employee – employer rights and obligations, not third party liability issues. That distinction could be very important and is currently pending judicial review and determination.

2. There is now a particularly important 2026 case: Gonzales v. Uber

This is probably the case to most closely watch regarding this issue.

In Gonzales v. Uber Technologies, Inc., an Uber driver rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle in January 2022. The plaintiff sued both the driver and Uber and asserted traditional vicarious-liability/agency theories.

In February 2026, the Orange County Superior Court accepted Uber’s argument that Prop. 22’s §7451 eliminates Uber’s tort liability to third parties when the driver qualifies as an independent contractor.

The plaintiff sought writ relief.

The California Court of Appeal granted a stay and issued an Order to Show Cause. The writ proceeding is currently pending in the Fourth District, Division Three, case G066530.

That is enormously significant because it means the appellate courts are now being asked directly to answer the question:

Does Prop. 22’s independent-contractor provision eliminate Uber/Lyft’s common-law vicarious liability for injuries to third parties caused by their drivers?

As of today, August 19, 2026, the answer is NOT definitively “yes.”

The issue is being litigated.

3. Why Castellanos doesn’t answer that question

This is where Castellanos v. State of California, 16 Cal.5th 588 (2024), needs to be carefully understood.

The Castellanos case involved a constitutional challenge to Prop. 22 based primarily on the Legislature’s constitutional authority over workers’ compensation.

The Supreme Court held Prop. 22 constitutional.

But it did not decide:

“Prop. 22 eliminates Uber’s vicarious tort liability for accidents caused by its drivers.”

The Supreme Court’s opinion was concerned with whether voters could constitutionally establish the independent-contractor classification notwithstanding the Legislature’s constitutional authority concerning workers’ compensation.

So Uber cannot properly say:

“Castellanos held that Uber has no tort liability.”

It didn’t.

4. What happens to respondeat superior?

This is the heart of the problem.

Ordinarily:

Employee + scope of employment + negligent driving → employer vicariously liable.

Prop. 22 states:

Driver = independent contractor and not employee or agent.

That gives Uber/Lyft a very powerful argument that the fundamental prerequisite for respondeat superior is missing.

And some trial courts have accepted that reasoning.

For example, a Fresno Superior Court ruling considered Uber’s argument that §7451 established the driver as an independent contractor and, therefore, defeated vicarious liability.

But California tort law has a complicated history concerning independent contractors and exceptions to the general rule of no liability.

So the plaintiff’s argument is:

Prop. 22 determines employment status for the statutory purposes addressed by the initiative; it does not necessarily abolish California’s common-law tort rules governing whether a company is responsible for the conduct of someone performing its business.

That argument is now being tested directly in the appellate courts.

5. What about negligent hiring, retention and entrustment?

This is where the practical litigation strategy becomes particularly interesting.

Suppose someone is injured by an Uber driver who:

• has multiple prior DUI convictions;
• has a terrible driving record;
• has previously caused accidents;
• has been reported for dangerous driving;
• was improperly screened;
• was allowed to remain on the platform despite safety violations.

The lawyers for the injured victims or the family with a wrongful death claim because a relative was killed could theoretically assert:

Count 1 — Driver negligence. Against the driver.

Count 2 — Uber vicarious liability. Uber is responsible for its driver’s negligence. This is the count most directly threatened by §7451.

Count 3 — Negligent hiring/retention. Uber itself negligently selected or retained the unqualified driver.

Count 4 — Negligent entrustment. If the facts support it, but would that only apply if the rideshare company provided the vehicle itself or is providing the app and the customer sufficient?

Count 5 — Direct corporate negligence. For example, negligent or even reckless safety policies or other unsafe conduct by Uber itself.

Those theories are conceptually different from:

“Uber is vicariously liable because the driver was its employee.”

That distinction could become extremely important if the courts conclude Prop. 22 bars respondeat superior but does not bar independent negligence claims.

6. But there is a complication with negligent hiring

California has an important case called Diaz v. Carcamo, 51 Cal.4th 1148 (2011).

In simplified terms, when an employer admits vicarious responsibility for its employee’s negligent driving, California generally does not allow the plaintiff to pile on negligent hiring/retention/entrustment claims based upon the same underlying conduct, because those theories become duplicative.

But here’s the interesting rideshare wrinkle:

What if Uber cannot be held vicariously liable because Prop. 22 makes the driver an independent contractor?

Then the reason for applying the Diaz rule may be substantially different – there would be NO duplication.

The plaintiff can argue:

“I have no vicarious-liability remedy against Uber because Uber says Prop. 22 prevents it. Therefore you cannot simultaneously tell me I cannot pursue Uber’s independent negligence in hiring or retaining this dangerous driver.”

That is a potentially powerful argument.

7. What about “ostensible agency”?

This is another avenue worth examining.

An injured member of the public doesn’t necessarily know:

“This driver is an independent contractor who has a contractual relationship with a Delaware corporation.”

What the passenger sees is:

UBER → Uber application → Uber ride → Uber price → Uber receipt → Uber driver.

That creates an interesting potential argument concerning ostensible agency.

The basic concept is that a principal can sometimes be responsible where it represents or holds another out as its agent and the third party reasonably relies upon that representation.

However, §7451’s express statement that the driver is “not an employee or agent” creates a substantial defense for Uber, so we cannot characterize ostensible agency as an easy end-run around Prop. 22.

It is nevertheless an issue to preserve and research carefully in an appropriate case.

8. Here’s something that is extremely important for injured victims—the requirement that rideshare companies maintain insurance

Even if Uber ultimately wins the tort-liability question, that does not necessarily mean the plaintiff is left with an uninsured driver.

This is where the insurance statute becomes critical.

California requires TNCs to maintain substantial liability insurance.

So we have:

Driver negligently causes injury collision → Driver is independent contractor → Uber argues it isn’t vicariously liable

BUT

California requires TNC insurance → The applicable Uber/Lyft liability policy can provide the required accident coverage.

Therefore:

Liability and insurance are two different questions.

That’s probably the single most important practical distinction in these cases.

9. How to plead Uber/Lyft depending upon the accident collision

At this juncture, initially consider naming:

• The driver
• Uber Technologies, Inc. / Lyft, Inc.
• And potentially the appropriate insurance entities, depending upon the circumstances and procedural considerations.

Then allege, where factually supportable:

1. Driver negligence;
2. Vicarious liability/respondeat superior;
3. Agency theories;
4. Ostensible agency, if facts support it;
5. Negligent hiring;
6. Negligent retention;
7. Negligent entrustment;
8. Direct negligence by the TNC, where supportable;
9. All applicable statutory/insurance theories.

Then let the Prop. 22 issue be litigated.

Until clarification, we do not concede at the pleading stage that §7451 eliminates every possible claim against Uber/Lyft.

10. There is another fascinating point: Prop. 22 itself creates obligations for Uber/Lyft

We do not concede that Prop. 22 is a blanket corporate immunity statute.

One reason for that is because while Prop. 22 may give Uber/Lyft the benefit of independent-contractor status for certain issues, possibly including liability, the companies still must comply with the required statutory conditions and obligations.

Section 7451’s four (4) mandatory independent conditions are quite specific.

And there are ongoing disputes about whether Uber is actually complying with all aspects of Prop. 22. For example, a 2026 lawsuit by California rideshare drivers alleges Uber has failed to comply with Prop. 22’s required deactivation-appeal process.

That raises an interesting litigation possibility:

If Uber doesn’t satisfy the statutory conditions necessary to qualify the driver as an independent contractor under §7451, can Uber still invoke §7451 as a defense to vicarious liability?

That is a factual issue to consider in individual cases.

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Civil Code § 1714 — The General Duty of Care

The statutory insurance obligation exists precisely because the California regulatory scheme recognizes that members of the public need financial protection when TNC drivers cause accidents.

“Everyone is responsible … for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.” California Civil Code § 1714

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
This 19th-century statute remains the bedrock of every California negligence claim, including rideshare crashes. It is the starting point for proving that a driver — and, depending on the facts, Uber or Lyft itself — owed and breached a duty of reasonable care.

Deadlines to File a Lawsuit

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 — Personal Injury Statute of Limitations

“Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.” California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
You generally have two (2) years from the date of a rideshare collision to file a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit in California, subject to exceptions for which any injury accident victim should consult an experienced licensed attorney. Miss it (again subject to certain exceptions), and the claim is barred forever, regardless of how clear liability is. Claims against a public entity (for example, if a defectively maintained road or government worker contributed to the crash) require a separate government claim within six (6) months under Government Code § 911.2 — a much shorter and easily missed deadline plus other government claim procedures.

Claims by minors have additional time to file suit, generally two (2) years after becoming an adult (currently age 18) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a). And there are exceptions, including that additional time does not include government claims against public entities.

STATUTE — IN EFFECT

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.60–377.61 — The Wrongful Death Statute

“A cause of action for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another may be asserted by … the decedent’s surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, and issue of deceased children, or … the persons … who would be entitled to the property of the decedent by intestate succession.” California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.60

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
When a rideshare collision is fatal, § 377.60 identifies exactly who has legal standing to sue — surviving spouse, domestic partner, and children first, with other heirs eligible in narrower circumstances. Section 377.61 allows recovery of “just” damages, which California courts interpret to include loss of financial support, loss of household services, funeral and burial expenses, and loss of the decedent’s love, companionship, society, comfort, care, and guidance. See the companion page on California Wrongful Death Laws (walchlaw.com/california-wrongful-death-laws.html) for a full breakdown.

Part 1B — Current CPUC Regulations for Rideshare (TNC) Companies

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the state agency that licenses and actively regulates Uber, Lyft, and every other TNC operating in California.

REGULATION — IN EFFECT (as amended)

CPUC Decision 13-09-045 and Successor Decisions — The TNC Regulatory Framework

Issued September 19, 2013 in Rulemaking 12-12-011; amended by D.14-04-022, D.16-04-041, D.18-04-005, D.24-08-010, and others

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
D.13-09-045 was the CPUC’s original decision creating the “TNC” category of charter-party carrier and imposing the state’s first background-check, vehicle-inspection, driver-training, zero-tolerance drug/alcohol, and insurance requirements on Uber and Lyft — years before the Legislature codified similar rules into the Public Utilities Code. As amended, it remains the operative regulatory backbone the CPUC enforces today alongside the statutory scheme in §§ 5430–5450. General Orders 115-G, 157-E, and 158-A implement related passenger-carrier permitting rules. In litigation, a documented violation of these CPUC safety rules (e.g., an inadequate background check that let a disqualified driver on the platform) can support a negligence per se or negligent-hiring theory against the TNC.

REGULATION — IN EFFECT

TNC Permitting: TCP-P Permit & CPUC Annual Reporting

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Uber and Lyft operate in California under a TCP-P (Transportation Charter-Party — Passenger) permit issued by the CPUC’s Transportation Licensing and Analysis Branch, and must file annual compliance reports covering safety incidents, accessibility, and driver background checks. These CPUC filings are frequently obtained through discovery or public records requests and can reveal a pattern of safety complaints relevant to a negligent-hiring or negligent-retention claim.

Part 1C — Court Decisions — Currently Controlling

CASE LAW — CONTROLLING

Castellanos v. State of California (2024) 16 Cal.5th 588

California Supreme Court, decided July 25, 2024

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
The California Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, confirming that Business & Professions Code § 7451 validly classifies qualifying app-based rideshare drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. This is the controlling word on the classification question and is the case Uber and Lyft cite whenever a plaintiff tries to hold them vicariously liable under a traditional employer-employee theory. It does not, however, address or limit direct-negligence claims against the companies or their statutory insurance obligations.

CASE LAW — CONTROLLING

Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903

California Supreme Court

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Dynamex established the “ABC test” for employee-versus-independent-contractor status, later codified in Labor Code § 2775. While Prop 22 carves rideshare drivers out of this test for most purposes, Dynamex remains the controlling standard for evaluating whether a driver falls outside Prop 22’s protections, and for related-industry gig-economy litigation generally.

CASE LAW — PERSUASIVE / FREQUENTLY CITED

Cotter v. Lyft, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2015) 60 F. Supp. 3d 1067

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
In rejecting Lyft’s argument that it was “merely a platform” providing no actual transportation service, the federal court held that the argument “is not a serious one.” This reasoning is repeatedly cited — including by the California Court of Appeal in People v. Uber Technologies — to defeat the “we just make an app” defense that rideshare companies often raise to avoid liability.

CASE LAW — FOUNDATIONAL

Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804

California Supreme Court

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Li abolished contributory negligence (which barred any recovery if the injured person was even slightly at fault) and adopted California’s “pure comparative negligence” rule. This was a significant, game changing decision, helping injury victims. Before the Li case, the other party’s insurer could argue the claimant did something to contribute to the incident and regardless how slight it could mean NO recovery. In a rideshare crash where the driver, the TNC, and/or another motorist share fault — including where a passenger’s own conduct is disputed — Li’s rule means an injured person can still recover damages reduced by their own percentage of fault, even if that percentage is high. This rule applies to every rideshare (and other) accident case in California today.

Part 1D — Other Current Authorities Worth Knowing

CONTRACTUAL / PROCEDURAL

Uber’s and Lyft’s Terms of Service — Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Both companies’ passenger and driver terms of service contain arbitration clauses with class-action waivers. Courts have enforced many of these clauses, which can route a claim out of the public court system and into private arbitration. Whether an arbitration clause applies — and whether it can be challenged as unconscionable or improperly formed — is often one of the first procedural battles in a rideshare case and should be evaluated by counsel immediately after a collision.

While some clauses requiring arbitration may be beneficial in some ways, including providing privacy (court proceedings are public), there are some obvious drawbacks, including fees and costs. Arbitrations require the parties to pay the arbitrator’s expensive hourly fees. If an arbitrator charges $600 per hour (some charge $1,000.00 or more per hour!) and the arbitrator spends 40 hours, that charge alone comes to $24,000.00 as opposed to court filing fees of about $500.00. These fees are usually split evenly between the parties. And some arbitration clauses require three (3) arbitrators, where each side selects an arbitrator and those two arbitrators select a “neutral” arbitrator, so with three (3) arbitrators their combined fees for a 40 hour arbitration could be $72,000.00! While Uber, a billion dollar company, can easily set aside funds for such arbitrations (as can insurance companies), most injury victims cannot.

LOCAL REGULATION

Airport & Municipal TNC Pickup/Drop-off Rules

WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOUR CLAIM 
Airports (including LAX) and some municipalities impose their own designated pick-up/drop-off zones and permit conditions on TNC vehicles. Violations of these local safety rules can be relevant evidence in crashes that occur in or near designated rideshare zones.

How These Authorities Come Together in a Real Rideshare Injury Claim

1. Identify the insurance period. Under Pub. Util. Code § 5433, determine whether the driver’s app was off, on and waiting, or matched with a ride at the moment of the crash — this alone can be the difference between a $1 million policy and a $50,000–$300,000 policy.
2. Evaluate both driver and company liability. Civil Code § 1714 supports a claim against the negligent driver; direct-negligence and statutory theories under the TNC Act support claims against Uber or Lyft itself, separate from any employment-status argument under Business & Professions Code § 7451.
3. Address comparative fault. Under Li v. Yellow Cab, any shared fault reduces — but does not automatically eliminate or bar — recovery.
4. Watch the clock. Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 gives two (2) years for injury and wrongful death claims (shorter with special procedural rules if a government entity is involved), and evidence like GPS/app logs can disappear quickly if not preserved.
5. Depending on the circumstances, expect an arbitration fight. Uber’s and Lyft’s terms of service frequently trigger an early procedural dispute over arbitration that experienced counsel should address immediately.

Rideshare Accident Law — Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Why Rideshare Accident Victims Choose the Law Offices of Gary K. Walch, ALC

For over 50 years, the Law Offices of Gary K. Walch, A Law Corporation, has represented Southern California accident victims and the families of those killed in fatal collisions — recovering more than $150 million for our clients with a 98%+ success rate*. Our attorneys understand exactly how Uber’s and Lyft’s layered insurance policies, arbitration clauses, and independent-contractor defenses work, and how to cut through them to hold the right parties accountable. We handle Uber accidents, Lyft accidents, and wrongful death claims arising from rideshare collisions throughout Los Angeles, Calabasas, Beverly Hills, Woodland Hills, and all of Southern California — on a contingency-fee basis, with no fee unless we win. Please contact us now for your FREE consultation.