A St. Louis Lyft Driver Was Killed After a Ride Request. Which Claims Did the Appeals Court Revive?

What the lawsuit alleges

Three claims treat the app as a product: strict liability for a defective design, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn. The other two are negligent training and general negligence. Claims against the individuals were outside this appeal.

The petition says the app lacked checks for age, identity, and GPS location, and lacked tools for spotting patterns in fraudulent accounts. It says those gaps let the account holders book a ride with an unverified payment method and request it from a place where they were not. The opinion names Christopher D. Morgan and Ajane Barnes, then minors, as the people who set up the account. It says Morgan and another minor, V.W., announced the robbery at the pickup, and that Morgan fired the shot.

The petition also says the same scheme had been used before, and that Lyft knew or should have known that other drivers had been assaulted or carjacked that way. It alleges Lyft required logged-in drivers to accept requests or face possible discipline, and that Lyft required identification from some anonymously paying riders in other states. The judges took those allegations as true only to decide whether the complaint could proceed. Ameer still has to prove them.

Is an app a product?

Missouri product-liability cases had covered things such as car seats and airplane parts. They had excluded services such as medical care. A rideshare app was a question the state’s courts had not answered.

The court drew a two-part test from a 2024 federal case in Kansas, Doe v. Lyft. An app can qualify as a product if the facts show it has enough in common with a physical product. In a wrongful-death case like this one, the complaint also has to tie the death to the app’s design or how it works. A complaint about the developer’s services or business practices alone is not enough.

The court found both parts met at this stage. Lyft designed the software, made it available to users, and was in a position to manage the risks of that design. The complaint linked Ameer’s death to features it said Lyft left out, including checks that could flag a fake rider. The court also considered the allegation that Lyft used stronger verification in other states.

The opinion notes decisions under Kansas, California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois law that do not all come out the same way. This ruling applied Missouri’s test to the allegations in Ameer’s complaint. It is not a finding that every rideshare app is a defective product.

Why the negligence claims could go forward

Missouri generally does not require a company to protect someone from a third party’s crime. The court described two exceptions. One applies when special facts make the crime foreseeable. The other applies when a company puts someone in contact with people it knows or should know are especially likely to commit a crime, and gives them a particular opportunity to do so. The court said those exceptions can apply away from the company’s property.

Ameer alleged that Lyft failed to train drivers to recognize dangerous situations, failed to offer safety equipment such as a camera or a partition, and did not use the fraud and identity checks it used elsewhere. The court found those allegations specific enough to proceed under both exceptions.

Where the judges disagreed

Judge Michael S. Wright joined Judge Robert M. Clayton III’s opinion. Presiding Judge John P. Torbitzky agreed with the test for when an app can be a product, and he agreed with reviving the negligence claims. He would have dismissed the three product claims. In his view, the allegations described a failure to screen passengers. He treated that as a complaint about Lyft’s service, not a defect in the app.

Case timeline

• September 28, 2020: Ameer accepts a Lyft ride request in St. Louis and is shot and killed at the pickup, according to the petition.
• Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, No. 2222-CC00417: Rochelle Ameer sues Lyft and two of the minors. Lyft moves to dismiss the five claims against it. Judge Joseph P. Whyte grants the motion and certifies the judgment for immediate appeal.
• March 4, 2025: The Eastern District reverses the dismissal of all five claims against Lyft and remands the case, No. ED112455. Judge Torbitzky dissents in part.

What remains after the remand

All five claims against Lyft went back to the trial court. The appeals court held that the complaint was specific enough to continue. Evidence developed later could still defeat some or all of the claims. As of November 10, 2026, the sources linked below do not show a trial ruling, a settlement, or any other event after that remand.

In Cooper v. Lyft, an Ohio appeals court held that Lyft owed no legal duty to a Dayton driver killed during an attempted carjacking. That case was decided after discovery and under Ohio law. Ameer is earlier in the case, and it is a Missouri pleading decision. The Missouri court did not decide liability.

Missouri’s coverage rules are in the Missouri Uber and Lyft insurance guide.

Sources and case materials

• Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Rochelle Ameer v. Lyft, Inc., et al., No. ED112455, opinion filed March 4, 2025
• Opinion and partial dissent, No. ED112455 (PDF)

RideClaim.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.