Three Dayton Lyft Drivers Were Targeted. Why a Court Ruled Lyft Owed Brandon Cooper No Duty.

Three carjackings in 13 hours

The court described the events from the summary-judgment record, read in the light most favorable to Cooper. According to the opinion, three armed carjackings of Lyft drivers occurred in Dayton between 1 p.m. on January 25, 2022, and the early morning of January 26.

In the first, an account under the name “[J.] Dewberry” requested a ride from Pawtucket Street to Tyson Avenue. Three youths, including 15-year-old Tylan Peaks, got into driver C.B.’s car. A rear-seat passenger put a gun to her head and ordered her out, and the three drove off with her car, phone and purse.

At 12:33 a.m. on January 26, the “Jimmy Smith” account was created. It requested a ride from Oakridge Drive to Cambridge Avenue, and driver T.G. picked up four riders at 1:15 a.m. Near the destination, one of them pointed a gun at her and told her to stop. A rider pushed her out of the car, and the four drove away with her phone, wallet and other belongings.

At 1:25 a.m., Lyft’s Smart Trip Check-In feature automatically messaged T.G. because the ride was taking longer than expected, and it contacted the Jimmy Smith account too. Lyft received responses from both indicating that “everything was fine.” The ride was recorded as completed at 1:26 a.m.

Less than a minute later, the same account requested the same trip. Brandon auto-accepted it while finishing another ride. He picked up Peaks, 15-year-old Da’Trayvon Mitchell and two other juveniles at 1:47 a.m. and drove toward Cambridge Avenue.

“At 1:51 a.m., the Dayton police received a Shot Spotter alert that a person had been shot at 1029 Ferguson Avenue, which was a few blocks from Jimmy Smith’s purported destination on Cambridge Avenue,” the opinion says. Brandon was found dead in his car, which had hit a parked truck. “Mitchell admitted to detectives that he had shot Brandon in the back when Brandon attempted to drive away.”

The lawsuit

On December 6, 2022, Brittney Cooper, individually and as administrator of Brandon’s estate, sued Lyft, Mitchell and Peaks, asserting wrongful death and survivorship claims. The trial court denied Lyft’s motion to dismiss in September 2023, and the case moved into discovery.

Cooper argued that Lyft had a duty to warn and protect Brandon for three reasons: it actively participated in his work, it voluntarily assumed a duty through its terms of service and safety policies, and it had superior knowledge of the danger. Lyft argued that it owed no duty, that its terms disclaimed one and that the fatal carjacking was not foreseeable.

On March 4, 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment to Lyft and denied Cooper’s motion for partial summary judgment. She appealed.

How the court viewed Lyft’s role in the ride

Both sides agreed that Brandon was an independent contractor. Cooper argued that Lyft took an active role in his work and pointed to an Ohio case about a taxi company.

The judges said Lyft let riders and drivers connect but hadn’t assigned Brandon this trip or required him to take it. The rider’s account set the pickup, time, and destination. The judges treated Lyft’s safety programs as general oversight. They also said allowing the account to exist was different from taking part in the act that caused Brandon’s death, the attempted carjacking.

No duty to protect or warn

Ohio generally requires a special relationship before one party owes another a duty to protect them from a third party’s crime. Cooper didn’t claim that sort of relationship. The judges noted that Ohio requires Lyft to check drivers’ backgrounds but imposes no equivalent requirement for riders.

Cooper argued that Lyft knew more about the risk than Brandon and had a duty to warn him. The court pointed to the automated check-in during the earlier trip. Both the driver and the rider’s account sent replies indicating everything was fine, and the trip showed as complete. The court found those records gave Lyft no knowledge of an actual danger to the next driver.

What Lyft’s terms said

Cooper also argued that Lyft’s terms, privacy policy, and safety reports amounted to a promise to keep drivers safe. The judges read the terms as warning that the platform couldn’t guarantee a rider’s identity and that minors or people using false information could misuse it.

Lyft had added identity checks for some new accounts paying anonymously after a rise in carjackings. The opinion said Dayton wasn’t among its highest-risk markets. The judges found that Lyft hadn’t promised to use that tool in Dayton.

When Lyft learned about the earlier carjackings

T.G. reported her carjacking to Lyft at 10:25 a.m., hours after Brandon was killed. Details of the attack on C.B. also reached Lyft’s safety team only afterward. The data available to Lyft gave it no link between the Dewberry and Jimmy Smith accounts.

Cooper cited a knife threat in 2021 and a January 15, 2022 vehicle theft at a gas station involving no weapon. The judges said those earlier incidents gave Lyft insufficient warning of what would happen to Brandon. Judge Epley wrote the unanimous opinion, joined by Judges Tucker and Hanseman.

The Ohio Supreme Court declined review

Cooper asked the Ohio Supreme Court to take the case. On May 12, 2026, 2026-Ohio-1686 listed No. 2026-0244, Cooper v. Lyft, Inc., under “APPEALS NOT ACCEPTED FOR REVIEW.” The entry points back to Montgomery App. No. 30438, 2026-Ohio-765. Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice Brunner dissented in part and would have accepted the appeal.

The same entry granted the appellant’s motion to restrict and the appellee’s motion to seal jurisdictional briefing. Justice Fischer dissented in part and would have denied both motions. Justice Deters dissented in part and would have denied the appellant’s motion. Those orders concern the papers filed in the Supreme Court. The duty ruling remains the Second District’s January 16, 2026 judgment.

The May 12 announcement leaves that judgment in place. It is the last disposition the announcement shows.

Case timeline

• January 25, 2022: Driver C.B. is carjacked at gunpoint in Dayton after a ride request from the Dewberry account.
• January 26, 2022: The Jimmy Smith account is created at 12:33 a.m. Driver T.G. is carjacked. Brandon Cooper picks up four juveniles at 1:47 a.m. and is killed on that trip.
• December 6, 2022: Brittney Cooper sues Lyft, Mitchell and Peaks in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2022 CV 05451.
• September 22, 2023: The trial court denies Lyft’s motion to dismiss.
• March 4, 2025: The trial court grants summary judgment to Lyft.
• January 16, 2026: The Second District affirms, C.A. No. 30438, 2026-Ohio-765.
• May 12, 2026: The Ohio Supreme Court lists the appeal among appeals not accepted for review, No. 2026-0244, and grants the motion to restrict and the motion to seal jurisdictional briefing.

What the court did not decide

Cooper had also sued Mitchell and Peaks, but the judgment she appealed was the grant of summary judgment to Lyft.

For comparison, in Ameer v. Lyft, a Missouri appeals court ruled in 2025 that the mother of a St. Louis Lyft driver killed in a carjacking could proceed past a motion to dismiss. That ruling came at the pleadings stage under Missouri law. Cooper was decided after discovery, on summary judgment, under Ohio law.

Ohio’s insurance requirements for rideshare companies are covered in the Ohio Uber and Lyft insurance guide.

Sources and case materials

• Ohio Second District Court of Appeals, Brittney Cooper v. Lyft, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 30438, 2026-Ohio-765, opinion and judgment, January 16, 2026 (PDF)
• Supreme Court of Ohio case announcements, 2026-Ohio-1686, May 12, 2026 (PDF)

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