Does Uber Owe North Carolina Riders the Same Safety Duty as a Taxi Company?

What the trial court did

These points come from Mensing’s November 4, 2026 brief and the trial record it cites. They are not arguments the brief is asking the Fourth Circuit to adopt.

The case was tried in the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer, No. 3:25-cv-00737-CRB. It sits inside the federal multidistrict litigation over Uber passenger sexual-assault claims. The brief says Uber selected Mensing’s case as a bellwether.

Both sides moved for summary judgment on whether Uber is a common carrier. The brief says the district court granted Mensing’s motion, citing the order as JA MDL 5809. As the brief describes that order, the court held that Uber “clearly qualifies as a common carrier” under North Carolina law because it “holds itself out to the public as a transportation provider,” through advertising and through its conduct. The brief says the court also held that Uber’s duty to carry passengers safely is “non-delegable,” so Uber would be liable if the jury found that the driver battered her.

That ruling narrowed the trial. The brief says the jury was asked only whether the battery happened and what damages to award. The court excluded evidence of Uber’s safety record unless the door was opened, and it excluded the driver’s background check and rider ratings. At Uber’s request, the court admitted evidence that Mensing used Uber after the ride. Over her objection, the court excluded the driver’s criminal conviction and Uber’s decision to deactivate him.

The driver is not named in the brief this page uses, and the brief does not list him as a party to the appeal. Her complaint alleged that at the end of a late-night ride the driver turned toward her, groped her upper thigh, and made sexualized comments. The brief gives no date or city for the ride. The Charlotte Observer reported that the ride ended in Franklin County, that the incident happened at about 2 a.m. on March 26, 2019, and that the driver was never charged.

What the jury found

The brief says that at trial Uber argued the battery never happened. Uber played the driver’s deposition. He testified that he did not recall touching a passenger without consent.

The court instructed the jury that “Uber is liable if the driver committed a battery against the plaintiff.” The brief cites the April 20, 2026 trial transcript for that instruction and for the verdict. The jury found that the driver committed battery and awarded $5,000. The jury was not asked to decide a separate negligent-hiring or negligent-supervision claim.

That verdict is what the trial court submitted under its common-carrier ruling. It is not a Fourth Circuit decision. The Charlotte Observer reported that Uber appealed on May 19, 2026. No later court disposition is confirmed from the sources linked here.

What Mensing’s brief argues

The November 4 brief asks the Fourth Circuit to affirm. These are arguments, not findings.

Mensing argues that Uber holds itself out to the public as selling rides for pay, which she says meets the common-carrier test in State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Gulf-Atlantic Towing Corp. (1959). She argues that Uber’s ownership of the cars, and its label for the drivers, does not change that test. She argues that a common carrier’s duty to carry passengers safely cannot be handed to an independent contractor.

On the 2015 rideshare statute, the brief says Uber’s opening brief treats Article 10A of Chapter 20 as confirmation that Uber is not a common carrier. Mensing argues the opposite. She says the statute adds licensing, background-check, and branding rules, and that it does not expressly displace the common-carrier rule. She points to G.S. 20-280.8, in the same statute, which states a rebuttable presumption that drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. She argues North Carolina made no matching change for common-carrier liability. The brief says Florida, Indiana, and Illinois enacted statutes that override the common-carrier test for companies like Uber, and that North Carolina did not.

The insurance minimums in that statute are covered in the North Carolina rideshare insurance guide. This appeal, as briefed, is about duty. It does not restate those insurance tiers.

What the brief says Uber argues

Mensing’s brief describes Uber’s opening brief. It is not a substitute for that brief.

As her brief tells it, Uber argues that Uber does not itself provide transportation, that any nondelegable duty belongs only to carriers with a state franchise, and that a company is not liable for a driver’s assault when the driver is an independent contractor. Under that view, a rider would need another theory, such as negligence. The brief also says Uber argues that the 2015 statute confirms Uber is not a common carrier.

On a new trial, the brief says Uber’s opening brief asks for one based on evidence rulings. Mensing argues that Uber failed to preserve most of those objections, never moved for a new trial in the district court, and that the trial judge applied the evidence limits to both sides. Those preservation points are her argument about the record. They are not a Fourth Circuit ruling.

Where the appeal stood on November 4, 2026

Document 41 is the Brief of Appellee, filed November 4, 2026, in No. 26-1640. It is a brief in a pending appeal. It does not report an oral-argument date. It does not report a Fourth Circuit opinion or a dismissal.

As of November 10, 2026, no later docket event is confirmed from that brief or from the other sources linked here. The appeal was pending as of the November 4, 2026 brief.

Any Fourth Circuit decision would be a federal court’s application of North Carolina law. North Carolina’s own appeals courts can interpret that law for themselves.

Sources

• Brief of Appellee, WHB 823 v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC, No. 26-1640 (4th Cir. filed Nov. 4, 2026) (Doc. 41). This is the brief that describes the district court order, the trial, and Uber’s opening brief.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. Article 10A of Chapter 20, G.S. 20-280.1 through G.S. 20-280.10, the rideshare statute the briefs argue about.
• Charlotte Observer coverage of the plaintiff and the ride, for the March 26, 2019 details, the Franklin County drop-off, and the report that the driver was never charged.
• Charlotte Observer coverage of Uber’s appeal, for the report that Uber appealed on May 19, 2026.
• North Carolina rideshare insurance guide, for the insurance tiers in the statute. This appeal does not restate those tiers.

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