Rideshare driver safety sees scrutiny after high-profile carjackings, lawsuits

In the past year and a half, Uber and Lyft drivers in St. Louis have been victims of multiple carjackings as well as, in one case, forced to become the unwitting getaway driver from a murder scene. The danger these rideshare drivers face has led to calls for Uber and Lyft to do more to protect the drivers on their app, as well as lawsuits against them in court—lawsuits that are likely to become more and more common after a recent important ruling at the appellate level. 

The most recent uproar over rideshare app safety was sparked last week when a group of St. Louis teens carjacked an Uber driver and after being caught by police were quickly released back to their parents. The same teens, including a 16-year-old, then carjacked a Lyft driver. This all happened within a span of about 24 hours. In both cases, the teens led police on chases in the stolen vehicles before being apprehended. Police have expressed frustration over the juvenile courts not holding teens in detention until they have racked up a requisite number of “points” associated with the number and severity of crimes they are accused of. 

The story got attorney Johnny Simon’s attention for a different reason.

Since 2022, Simon has represented Rochelle Ameer in her lawsuit against Lyft. In 2020, Rochelle’s son, Andrew, was driving for Lyft when he accepted a call for a ride in North St. Louis’ Baden neighborhood. Two teenagers, who had called for the ride, tried to carjack him when one opened fire, killing him. 

For three years now, Simon has argued that the rideshare apps need to do more to protect drivers. Back when Ameer was killed, riders could make accounts using pre-paid debit cards and fake email addresses, says Simon. Uber and Lyft both now appear to have verification processes for riders. But Simon points out the system is clearly not perfect, with last week’s double carjacking being a case in point. 

“Minors are not supposed to be on this thing,” Simon says. “I just would love to get an answer for that story, to give it real context. When were their accounts created? Were they verified? How were they verified?” 

Lyft’s website explicitly states that people under 18 cannot ride on Lyft without an adult. Uber has an “Uber for teens” service, but it includes safeguards requiring parental supervision, and there’s nothing to indicate that it was in use in last week’s carjacking. 

A Lyft spokesperson says of the carjackings that, “The behavior described is reprehensible and has no place in the Lyft community or society. Our thoughts are with the driver, and we have reached out to offer support. We have permanently removed the rider from the Lyft platform, and stand ready to assist law enforcement with their investigation.” The spokesperson added that Lyft makes it easy to contact ADT security via the app.   

A spokesperson for Uber tells SLM, “There is no reason for these senseless attacks on hardworking drivers. Uber takes safety seriously and has invested in numerous in-app safety features, including GPS tracking, rider verification badges, in-app audio recording, and more. Violence is unacceptable, and we expect all users to follow our Community Guidelines, which clearly outline the standards of behavior on our platform.”

Simon says that Uber and Lyft, like many other apps, collect an enormous amount of data. But he thinks that data isn’t being put to good use to make drivers safer. For instance, if an account is brand new or “weird” in some other way, why can’t that be communicated to the driver? “The driver can then either know that information and agree to do [the ride],” he says. “They’re not just lulled to their deaths.”

Simon already notched a key victory in the lawsuit against Lyft. A ruling from the Missouri Court of Appeals, issued in March, found that Lyft can be treated as a product, and is therefore potentially subject to the state’s product liability laws. Prior to that ruling, rideshare apps had argued they were merely services, which requires far less responsibility toward users. Simon argued, persuasively, to a three-judge panel that the Lyft app and the algorithms it runs are standardized and mass-produced, not unlike something tangible bought off a store shelf. The panel agreed. The ruling applies specifically to Lyft, but expect plaintiffs to cite it against other rideshare apps when similar facts exist.

The Ameer lawsuit has now entered the discovery phase. Simon thinks that what he finds will only further bolster the notion that Lyft is a product. He hopes to find out if the company carries product liability insurance as well as find out what the company’s “product engineers” work on. 

“I’m sure they’re not just going to turn everything over,” he says. “There’s going to be a fight.”

Simon is not the only attorney taking on rideshare apps in court. 

Just yesterday, attorney Michael Garland filed a lawsuit on behalf of Paul Winka in St. Louis County Circuit Court against Lyft.

That lawsuit cites the ruling in the Ameer case at the appellate level. It accuses Lyft of both defective and negligent design, which are product liability claims.

Winka is a United States Air Force veteran who was deployed to Baghdad and Mosul in Iraq and later worked as a private contractor in Afghanistan, advising the country’s police force and developing PTSD in the process. 

Back in St. Louis in 2017, he started driving for Lyft, and in May 2024, he accepted a request for a ride from 19-year-old Lamarr Harris in the St. Ann area of North County. 

Harris got in Winka’s car. Things escalated quickly from there. Winka was soon being trailed by a handful of police vehicles, sirens flashing. It turned out that Harris had allegedly committed a double homicide just moments prior and Winka had become his unwitting getaway driver. Neighbors told KSDK at the time: “​​He did it and then had a (rideshare) ready for him so he could get out of here.”

Winka’s lawsuit says the veteran grew increasingly panicked as Harris was handcuffed. Winka wasn’t put in handcuffs, but neither was he told what was going on. For 90 minutes, he grew “increasingly panicked as he feared he might be wrongly implicated in a serious crime.” (Harris is set to go to trial next summer on his murder charge.)

Later, Lyft kicked Winka off the app, no longer allowing him to drive for Lyft. The reason? Winka had allegedly participated in “illicit activity that resulted in harm or death of a user or third party.” His attempts to gather more information were met with silence, the suit says. 

Garland writes in the lawsuit that, based on information Lyft makes publicly available, the company has adequate ability to conduct background checks on riders, but doesn’t do so. 

For his part, Simon is adamant that he doesn’t want rideshares to go away. He uses them himself. He just wants them to be safer for everyone involved. 

“Whenever I get an Uber, I’m definitely looking at their scores, how many trips they’ve had,” he says. “What do the drivers get? Is that information true and reliable, and is it geared towards safety, or is it geared toward people using the app and paying Uber or Lyft?”