California’s Proposition 22 and TNC Liability
California’s Proposition 22 (“Prop 22”) has stirred confusion about whether Uber and Lyft can be held vicariously liable for harms caused by their drivers. Prop 22, passed by voters in November 2020, established that app-based drivers are independent contractors “with respect to” their relationship to the hiring network company. In the wake of Castellanos v. State of California (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 131, which upheld Prop 22’s constitutionality with minor exceptions, many plaintiff attorneys worry that Prop 22’s independent contractor classification shields Transportation Network Companies (“TNCs”) from vicarious liability for driver negligence. It does not. Prop 22 was designed to address employment benefits and protections, not tort liability to third parties. As discussed below, Prop 22’s text, purpose, and ballot materials all confirm its limited scope, and California’s Public Utilities Code provides an independent statutory basis to hold TNCs liable for their drivers’ conduct. Recent court developments and strategic considerations likewise show that Prop 22 is no silver bullet for Uber and Lyft to evade liability.
Uber and Lyft have long sought to avoid being treated as transportation companies or employers, repeatedly claiming to be mere “technology platforms” rather than providers of rides. Courts have repeatedly rejected that ploy as meritless and frivolous. Prop 22 has become the latest weapon in the TNCs’ arsenal to evade responsibility, but a closer look reveals that Prop 22 is simply irrelevant to the question of a TNC’s liability to injured passengers or members of the public. This article explains why, and offers a roadmap to defeat Prop 22-based defenses in personal injury litigation.
Prop 22 Affects Only Driver–Network Company Relationships (Not Tort Liability)
Prop 22 was never intended to alter or limit tort remedies of injured third parties. Its subject matter is confined to classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors for purposes of California’s labor and employment laws. The ballot Title and Summary made this narrow aim explicit: “Exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits to certain drivers.” A “Yes” vote meant these companies “could hire drivers as independent contractors” such that drivers “would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees.” In other words, Prop 22’s focus was on gig economy employment status and benefits, not on tort liability.
The text of the initiative itself confirms this limited scope. Prop 22’s operative provision, now Business & Professions Code section 7451, is pointedly titled “Protecting Independence.” It declares that “an app-based driver is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent with respect to the app-based driver’s relationship with a network company” (emphasis added), so long as certain conditions are met. Those conditions (e.g., allowing driver control over working hours and ride acceptance) are hallmarks of an independent contractor relationship in the labor context. Nothing in Section 7451 or any part of Prop 22 purports to rewrite the rules of vicarious liability in tort. In fact, Prop 22 added sections to the Business & Professions Code (and amended some tax provisions), but pointedly did not modify the Civil Code, Vehicle Code, or Public Utilities Code – the bodies of law governing tort duties and common carrier liability for transportation companies.
Official statements of purpose and findings in Prop 22 underscore its employment law focus. The initiative is named the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” and its findings lamented threats to drivers’ flexibility posed by AB 5’s expansion of employee status. (See vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov.) The law’s purposes were explicitly listed: to protect the right of Californians to work as independent contractors, to preserve drivers’ flexibility in setting their own hours, and to require app companies to provide new benefits like minimum earnings, healthcare stipends, and accident insurance for drivers. (See vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov.) Conspicuously absent from the initiative’s purposes was any mention of reducing companies’ liability to the public. Indeed, Prop 22’s drafters took pains to include additional safety measures and insurance for drivers’ benefit, not to shield companies from liability. (Ibid.)
This one-sided focus makes sense given Prop 22’s origin. The law was a direct response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Dynamex (2018) 4 Cal.4th 903 and the Legislature’s enactment of AB 5, which adopted the strict “ABC” test for employee status in wage orders and labor statutes. AB 5 created a presumption that workers are employees “for purposes of the provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders,” explicitly a compensation and benefits context.1 Prop 22’s campaign was bankrolled by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and others to overturn AB 5 as applied to app-based drivers, thereby preserving the gig economy model where drivers receive no traditional employee benefits. It was not marketed to voters as a tort reform measure, and nothing in the voter pamphlet suggested that, by passing Prop 22, the public would also be giving Uber and Lyft a free pass for accidents caused by their drivers. To the contrary, the official summary informed voters that drivers would get “minimum compensation levels, insurance to cover on-the-job injuries, automobile accident insurance, health care subsidies for qualifying drivers, protection against harassment and discrimination, and mandatory contractual rights and appeal processes.” In short, the stated purpose of Prop 22 was to establish a new balance of labor rights and benefits for app-based drivers, not to rewrite tort law.2
Uber has acknowledged Prop 22’s limited scope in court. In defending Prop 22 from a constitutional challenge, Uber and other TNCs (as intervenors in Castellanos) emphasized that the initiative had a common purpose of adjusting the employment classification and benefits of app-based drivers, and that it created “a new balance of benefits and obligations for app-based drivers in lieu of either traditional employment or traditional independent contractor status.” (Castellanos v. State of California (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 131, 159.) By taking this position, Uber successfully argued that Prop 22 complied with California’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives (which it likely would not have if Prop 22 also sought to impact unrelated areas like tort liability). Having told the California Supreme Court in Castellanos that Prop 22 is only about the driver-company work relationship, Uber cannot credibly tell any other court that Prop 22 somehow impliedly immunizes it from vicarious liability for driver negligence.
Finally, a basic principle of statutory interpretation bolsters this view. The Prop 22 ballot measure (and Section 7451) included a prefatory clause that it applied “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” Uber argued that this phrase sweeps broadly enough to override laws outside the employment sphere. But courts construe such clauses in context, and here the context is entirely labor and employment law. The full clause references the Labor Code, Unemployment Insurance Code, and Department of Industrial Relations regulations (see vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov), confirming the drafters were targeting worker-classification laws, not every law under the sun. Reading “notwithstanding any law” to reach tort statutes or common-carrier regulations would not only defy the voters’ intent—it would raise serious constitutional problems (again, the single-subject rule). In sum, Business & Professions Code section 7451 (Prop 22) simply does not govern the relationship between TNCs and the injured public; it governs only the relationship between TNCs and their drivers for purposes of employment benefits and obligations.
The Public Utilities Code Imposes Vicarious Liability on TNCs, Independent of Prop 22
Completely apart from traditional respondeat superior (which attaches to employees), California law has long imposed statutory vicarious liability on entities like Uber and Lyft for their drivers’ negligence. This is grounded in the Public Utilities Code (“PUC”) and decades of public policy holding passenger carriers responsible for the safety of those they transport.
TNCs are “charter-party carriers” and common carriers under California law, subject to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”). In 2013, well before Prop 22, the CPUC asserted jurisdiction over Uber, Lyft, and similar companies, concluding that TNCs are charter party passenger carriers under the PUC. The Commission’s Decision 13-09-045 defined a TNC as any organization “operating in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application (app) or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.” (CPUC Decision 13-09-045, Sep. 19, 2013.) In other words, Uber and Lyft provide transportation services (not merely technology platforms), and thus fit squarely within the state’s regulatory framework governing for-hire carriers. By law, such carriers are deemed common carriers, owing the highest duty of care to passengers (the Civil Code requires “utmost care and diligence” of common carriers in transporting passengers). (Cal. Civ. Code, § 2100.)
Most critically, the PUC explicitly makes carriers liable for their drivers’ actions. PUC section 5354 provides that for charter-party carriers, “the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or employee, or person offering to afford the authorized service with the approval or consent of the [carrier], is the act, omission, or failure of the [carrier].” This is a legislative command: if a carrier’s driver (a person providing the service with the carrier’s consent) is negligent, the carrier is deemed to have been negligent. In effect, it codifies vicarious liability (indeed, strict liability) for the permitted carrier. Uber holds a TNC permit (TCP 38150) and Lyft holds a TNC permit (TCP 0032513-P) issued by the CPUC. Accordingly, Uber, Lyft, and all other TNC permit holders are statutorily responsible for the acts and omissions of their drivers. Prop 22 did not repeal or amend Section 5354, nor did its text even reference this provision; consequently, Section 5354 remains as a fundamental source of liability against TNCs.
The CPUC’s own pronouncements leave no doubt on this point. In the same 2013 rulemaking, the Commission noted that “Uber by its name alone is selling a type of car service. Because Uber is profiting from this service it should also be held responsible if the driver is negligent or not applying Uber[‘s] safe practices.” (CPUC Decision 13-09-045, September 19, 2013.) The CPUC thus recognized a fundamental principle: companies that profit from arranging transportation cannot divorce themselves from the conduct of those who actually drive the vehicles. The public safety rationale is clear, and it aligns with California’s long tradition of holding carriers accountable for their passengers’ injuries. Prop 22 did nothing to alter the CPUC’s jurisdiction or the charter-party carrier statutes that impose these obligations.
Plaintiffs also have a direct statutory cause of action to enforce this carrier liability. Under PUC section 2106, if a public utility (which includes CPUC-regulated common carriers) does “any act … prohibited or declared unlawful” or fails to comply with any required duty, and as a result someone is injured, the law provides that the wronged person may bring an action in court and recover damages. In other words, the PUC not only defines Uber and Lyft’s responsibility, it also expressly authorizes injured parties to sue for violations of those responsibilities. Courts have applied Section 2106 to TNCs, recognizing that as common carriers and transportation companies, they are within the statute’s reach. Thus, if Uber or Lyft fails to meet duties imposed by law or CPUC regulations—for example, the duty to “provide safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities” or to ensure their drivers follow applicable safety laws—an injured passenger or third party can seek civil damages under Section 2106. (See 49 U.S.C. § 14101(a).) Crucially, when adjudicating such a claim, a court must “construe and enforce” the pertinent provisions of the Public Utilities Code’s charter-party carrier chapter. That means the court will apply Section 5354’s mandate that a driver’s negligent acts are deemed the company’s acts. In sum, even if Prop 22 means a driver isn’t an “employee” of Uber, Uber is still liable by statute as a permitted carrier responsible for those who operate under its permit.
Bottom line: California’s statutory scheme establishes that TNCs are liable for their drivers’ negligence, regardless of the drivers’ classification as employees or contractors. This was true before Prop 22, and remains true today. Prop 22 did not rewrite the PUC or narrow the definition of a charter-party carrier’s “agents” or “persons” to whom Section 5354 applies. Thus, even accepting that a rideshare driver is an “independent contractor” for labor purposes, Uber and Lyft cannot escape liability for that driver’s negligence under the independent statutory duties that govern their operations.
Roadmap: Opposing TNC Motions That Invoke Prop 22 to Evade Liability
Eager to capitalize on their hard-fought Prop 22 victory, TNCs are pursuing dispositive motions premised on the fallacy that Prop 22 bars plaintiffs’ claims against them for their drivers’ negligence. Faced with this strategy, it is vital that we oppose those motions with the collective wisdom members of our community have earned through numerous hard-fought victories against TNCs. Experience informs us that a multi-faceted strategy is necessary to educate the court and lay bare the red herring that is Prop 22. The following is a practical roadmap to opposing such motions:
• Embrace the Text and Plain Meaning of Prop 22: Emphasize that Business & Professions Code section 7451 by its terms applies only to the driver’s “relationship with a network company.” The statute expressly disclaims any employee or agent status with respect to that relationship, a clear reference to the employment context. It says nothing about the relationship between the TNC and the public or third parties. In your brief, quote the key language from Section 7451 and argue that by its plain meaning, it does not reach tort liability issues between the TNC and an injured plaintiff. If the driver met Section 7451’s conditions, they may not be an “employee” of Uber for workers’ compensation or wage-law purposes, but that is irrelevant to a third-party injury claim.
• Cite the Ballot Materials and Voter Intent: Point out that the Prop 22 ballot proposition was sold to voters as dealing with driver classification and benefits, not liability to others. Use the official Title and Summary and the Act’s statement of purpose to show the court that voters had no indication they were voting on a liability shield. For example, the voter guide stated that drivers would be independent contractors and would “not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees.”3 It made no mention of limiting lawsuits by members of the public. Under well-settled principles, a law cannot be construed to have a meaning that was not fairly presented to the voters. The absence of any hint about tort liability strongly supports the conclusion that Prop 22 was not intended to affect it.
• Underscore Prop 22’s Context in the Business & Professions Code: Remind the court that Prop 22 placed its provisions in the B&P Code, in a chapter focused on app-based driver rights and network company obligations to drivers (e.g., minimum compensation, insurance for on-the-job injuries and anti-discrimination policies). It did not amend Civil Code sections 2100–2102 (common carrier duties) or any statutes creating liability for injuries to third parties. The contextual reading of the initiative as a whole shows it is a labor regulation. If the defense argues the introductory “notwithstanding any other law” clause expands Section 7451 beyond employment law, counter that such an interpretation is out of context and would violate the single-subject rule (since voters were told the law’s single purpose was to address driver benefits). Courts avoid interpretations that render an initiative unconstitutional, so Section 7451 must be read narrowly, confined to its subject matter (employment classification).
• Invoke the Independent Public Utilities Code Basis for Liability: Even assuming that Prop 22 could be read to classify drivers as independent contractors for all purposes, it still would not foreclose TNC liability. This is because liability stems from statutes and regulations that impose direct and vicarious liability on TNCs as carriers, irrespective of common-law employment status. Detail PUC section 5354 and how it makes the TNC responsible for the driver’s acts. Emphasize that Prop 22 did not repeal or amend this provision, nor PUC section 2106 which gives injured parties a right to sue for violation of carrier duties. The defense may argue that Section 5354 doesn’t apply because an independent contractor isn’t an “agent.” That argument fails: Section 5354 covers “any … person offering to afford the authorized service with the approval or consent of the [carrier].” That plainly includes a TNC driver who has been authorized to use the platform to transport passengers. Whether the driver is labeled contractor or employee, the statute imputes their negligence to the company. In short, Prop 22 cannot nullify the PUC’s statutory liability scheme, and any conflict should be resolved in favor of the more specific public-safety statutes over the general “independent contractor” label.
• Highlight Supporting Case Law (and the Lack Thereof for TNCs): If available, cite any trial court decisions that have rejected the Prop 22 defense. As of this writing, at least one California trial judge has squarely held that Prop 22 does not bar a negligence claim against a TNC. In Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hirzallah) in Orange County, the court denied Uber’s motion to dismiss on Prop 22 grounds, and Uber’s attempt to obtain appellate relief failed. (Consumer Attorneys of California filed an amicus brief supporting the trial court’s reasoning, and Uber entered into a stipulated dismissal of the writ petition soon thereafter.) In another personal injury case (Beck v. Uber, San Francisco Superior Court) Uber actually withdrew its summary judgment motion on Prop 22 just days before the hearing, effectively conceding the motion’s likely failure. By contrast, Uber has cited a couple of 2024 trial court rulings (one in Fresno, one in San Diego) that accepted Prop 22 arguments, but those were outliers rendered with little analysis (one was reportedly unopposed by the plaintiff). Make sure the judge understands that no published appellate decision has ever held Prop 22 applicable to vicarious liability, and the weight of authority (even at the trial level) is against Uber’s position.
• Expose Inconsistency, Argue Equity (Estoppel) and Request Judicial Notice: This is an opportunity to call out Uber’s about-face between the Castellanos case and your case. Draw the contrast: In the Court of Appeal, Uber insisted Prop 22’s only effect was to govern labor and employment issues, effectively assuring the court (and the public) that it had nothing to do with tort law. Uber prevailed with that argument. It would be fundamentally unfair and inconsistent with judicial integrity to let Uber now use Prop 22 as a shield against liability in a personal injury case. The doctrine of judicial estoppel supports this position. While a trial court might be hesitant to invoke estoppel against a party, the argument adds moral force to your opposition and underscores the disingenuousness of the TNC’s position. Further, in opposing these dispositive motions, request judicial notice of favorable rulings and the TNC’s inconsistent arguments.4
• Reinforce Public Policy and Legislative Intent: Finally, remind the court of the strong public policy at stake. California law has always placed the burden of compensating injured victims of vehicular negligence on the enterprises that create and profit from the activity, rather than leaving victims uncompensated. Nothing in Prop 22’s text or history suggests the voters intended to upend this policy. On the contrary, Prop 22’s insurance provisions show voters expected injured persons would be compensated (at least to the $1 million minimum) by the companies. An interpretation of Prop 22 that lets TNCs off the hook entirely for an accident would contradict voters’ reasonable expectations and produce an inconsistent, if not absurd, result. If needed, cite the rule that courts avoid interpretations leading to absurd consequences or undermining the statute’s purposes. Here, letting a TNC escape liability would neither further Prop 22’s purpose (which was protecting driver flexibility and benefits) nor comport with the Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act’s assurance of safety and accountability to the public.
The strategies and arguments above have proven effective to defeat motions premised on Prop 22. Reframe the issue for the judge: this isn’t a novel “gig economy” question, but a straightforward application of long-standing carrier liability law. Prop 22 simply operates in a different domain (employment law). Once the courts, who have been skeptical of Uber’s gambit, see that Prop 22 does not alter TNC tort liability, Uber and Lyft’s Prop 22 defense should collapse. In some instances, Uber has retreated rather than face an adverse ruling. Instead of shying away from Prop 22, you should embrace it for what it is: confirmation that Uber and Lyft owe certain benefits and protections to their drivers, while nothing in it abrogates their responsibility to the public that arises from their core business—operating a transportation service. In short, Prop 22 did not change the rules of the road for TNC tort liability. When Uber or Lyft raise Prop 22 as a roadblock, well-prepared plaintiff’s counsel can dismantle it and obtain justice for the injured.
1 See https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5
2 Ibid.
3 See https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/quick-reference-guide/22.htm.
4 The authors of this article have assembled a compendium of pleadings, orders, and other materials discussed herein to be utilized in opposition to any motion premised on Prop 22, which they will provide upon request.