“Uber classifies its drivers as independent contractors, so you can’t sue Uber.” This is the single most repeated statement in rideshare accident content, and it is also incomplete to the point of being misleading. The independent contractor classification does limit one specific path to corporate liability. It does not eliminate every path. Understanding the difference is the difference between accepting that Uber the company bears no responsibility for what happened to you and recognizing that a separate, well-established legal theory may apply directly to Uber’s own conduct.

What the Independent Contractor Classification Actually Limits

Uber and Lyft classify their drivers as independent contractors under Texas Occupations Code Section 2402.114, which provides that a driver is treated as an independent contractor when the company does not prescribe specific hours the driver must be logged into the platform and does not restrict the driver’s ability to use other rideshare platforms simultaneously.

This classification matters because it limits a specific legal theory: vicarious liability, also called respondeat superior, which is the doctrine that holds an employer responsible for an employee’s negligent acts committed within the scope of employment. Vicarious liability generally requires an employer-employee relationship. Because Uber’s drivers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, Uber is generally shielded from vicarious liability for a driver’s ordinary negligent driving, such as running a red light, following too closely, or driving distracted.

This is the part of the picture that most content stops at. It is accurate as far as it goes, but it answers only one of the relevant legal questions.

Jonathan Herrera spent over a decade evaluating high-exposure casualty claims as a licensed insurance adjuster before becoming an attorney. That background includes understanding how corporate defendants structure their operations specifically to limit certain categories of liability exposure, while leaving other categories of exposure fully intact, which directly informs how a rideshare case should be evaluated.

The Theory That Doesn’t Depend on Employment Status: Negligent Hiring

Texas law recognizes a category of claims against a company that has nothing to do with whether the person who caused the harm was an employee or an independent contractor. These are direct negligence claims against the company itself, based on the company’s own conduct, not on the conduct of the person it hired. Negligent hiring is the most significant of these theories in the rideshare context.

A negligent hiring claim argues that the company failed to exercise reasonable care in deciding who to allow onto its platform, and that this failure was a cause of the injury. This is fundamentally different from arguing that Uber should be responsible because the driver is effectively an employee. It argues instead that Uber, acting as itself, made a decision, approving and continuing to allow a specific driver access to passengers and the public, that fell below the standard of reasonable care, given what Uber knew or should have known about that driver.

Because this theory targets the company’s own conduct rather than the driver’s employment status, the independent contractor classification does not defeat it. A company can be a negligent hirer of an independent contractor in exactly the same way it can be a negligent hirer of an employee. The contractor classification limits vicarious liability; it does not limit direct liability for the company’s own screening and retention decisions.

What Texas Law Requires Uber to Check Before Approving a Driver

Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2402, the statute establishing the statewide regulatory framework for transportation network companies, requires TNCs to conduct background checks on drivers before granting platform access and to repeat criminal background checks periodically. This framework was established by House Bill 100, enacted by the 85th Texas Legislature in 2017.

It is worth being precise here, because this specific point is frequently misstated across rideshare accident content, including by other firms: the background check and driver disqualification requirements are not the product of House Bill 1733. House Bill 1733, enacted in 2015, is a separate and earlier piece of legislation that created the insurance coverage framework now codified at Texas Insurance Code Chapter 1954, the layered coverage structure that determines which policy applies based on a driver’s app status at the time of a crash. The negligent hiring framework discussed in this guide comes from a different statute entirely.

According to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, the state agency responsible for administering TNC permits and enforcing Chapter 2402, the required background check must include a local, state, and national criminal background check using a commercial multistate and multijurisdiction criminal records locator, and a check of the national sex offender public website. The company must also obtain and review the driver’s driving record.

Texas Occupations Code Section 2402.107 establishes the specific criteria that disqualify a driver from being permitted onto a TNC’s digital network. A driver may not be allowed onto the platform if they have, within the three-year period preceding the background check, been convicted of more than three offenses classified as moving violations, or one or more specific offenses including fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, reckless driving, or driving without a valid license. A driver is also disqualified if, within the preceding seven years, they have been convicted of driving while intoxicated, used a motor vehicle to commit a felony, or committed certain other felony offenses. A driver registered on the national sex offender public website is disqualified entirely, with no lookback period limitation.

Why a General Texas Law Limiting Negligent Hiring Claims Doesn’t Apply Here

A separate Texas statute is worth addressing directly, since it could otherwise seem to undercut the negligent hiring theory described above. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 142, enacted in 2013, generally limits negligent hiring and supervision claims against an employer based solely on evidence that a worker has a prior criminal conviction, unless the employer knew or should have known of specific qualifying convictions, such as one committed in a substantially similar role or certain serious enumerated offenses.

This protection does not extend to rideshare companies in the negligent hiring context. Chapter 142 defines the term it protects, “employee,” as a person other than an independent contractor. Because TNC drivers are statutorily classified as independent contractors under Section 2402.114, the liability limitation in Chapter 142 simply does not apply to them. This means the broader negligent hiring theory described in this guide is not narrowed or blocked by this separate statute, precisely because of the same independent contractor classification that limits vicarious liability in the first place.

How a Negligent Hiring Claim Against Uber Actually Works

Successfully pursuing a negligent hiring claim requires establishing several specific elements, and understanding what each element requires clarifies why this is a fact-intensive inquiry rather than something that applies automatically whenever a rideshare driver causes a crash.

The driver had a disqualifying history. This means the driver’s background, at the time Uber approved them or at some point during their continued access to the platform, contained one or more of the specific disqualifying factors established under Section 2402.107, such as a qualifying DWI conviction, a pattern of moving violations, or another disqualifying offense.

A proper background check would have revealed it, or did reveal it. This element connects Uber’s screening process to the driver’s actual history. If Uber’s background check process was conducted as required and simply failed to surface information that should have been discoverable, that failure is itself potentially negligent. If Uber’s check did surface disqualifying information and the company allowed the driver onto the platform anyway, or failed to remove the driver after later learning of disqualifying conduct, that is an even more direct basis for the claim.

The company’s conduct in this screening and retention process fell below the standard of reasonable care. This is the negligence element itself: did Uber do what a reasonably careful company in its position would have done to screen and monitor its drivers, given the statutory requirements and the foreseeable risk to passengers and the public.

The driver’s disqualifying conduct or pattern was connected to the injury. This is the causation element. A driver’s eight-year-old non-disqualifying speeding ticket has little connection to a crash caused by drowsy driving. A driver with a documented pattern of reckless driving citations who then causes a crash through reckless driving presents a much clearer causal connection between the screening failure and the harm.

Establishing these elements typically requires obtaining the driver’s background check records, application history, and any prior complaint or incident records maintained by the rideshare company, which generally requires formal legal process, since this information is not publicly available and the company has no obligation to disclose it voluntarily.

Why This Theory Is Independent of the Coverage Period Analysis

Rideshare injury claims in Texas often involve a separate analysis of which insurance policy applies based on the driver’s app status at the time of the crash, governed by Texas Insurance Code Chapter 1954. That coverage period analysis and the negligent hiring theory are entirely independent of one another, and it is worth understanding why.

The coverage period analysis determines which insurance policy, the driver’s personal policy or one of Uber’s tiered TNC policies, responds to the claim based on what the driver’s app showed at the moment of impact. The negligent hiring theory does not depend on the driver’s app status at all. A negligent hiring claim against Uber can exist whether the crash happened while the app was off, while the driver was waiting for a ride, or during an active trip, because the basis for the claim is Uber’s own conduct in screening and approving the driver, not what the driver was doing on the app at the moment of the crash.

This means that in a case where coverage is disputed or limited because of the app status at the time of the crash, an additional and entirely separate claim against Uber directly may still be available, depending on the driver’s background, regardless of how the coverage period question is ultimately resolved.

What Kind of Driver History Tends to Support This Theory

Not every prior incident in a driver’s history supports a viable negligent hiring claim. The disqualifying criteria under Section 2402.107 set the statutory floor, but a negligent hiring claim can potentially extend further, to circumstances where a reasonably careful company would have taken action even outside the strict statutory disqualification list, particularly when the company had specific notice of a problem through rider complaints, prior incidents, or other red flags and failed to act on them.

Relevant categories of driver history include qualifying DWI or intoxication-related convictions within the statutory lookback period, a documented pattern of reckless driving or fleeing-related offenses, felony convictions involving the use of a vehicle, registration on the national sex offender registry, and a documented pattern of safety-related passenger complaints that the company received and failed to meaningfully investigate or act upon.

The strength of any particular case depends heavily on what records exist and what they show, which is precisely why this category of claim requires thorough investigation before its viability can be assessed.

Why This Is an Evolving Area of Texas Rideshare Litigation

The negligent hiring pathway against transportation network companies has become an increasingly significant feature of rideshare litigation in Texas as the regulatory framework under Chapter 2402 has matured and as more cases have tested how courts apply these standards to TNCs specifically. Because the underlying screening requirements are now well established and the disqualifying criteria are specifically defined by statute, claims built around this theory have a clearer statutory framework to work from than was true in the years immediately following the law’s enactment.

For injured parties and their attorneys, this means the question is no longer simply whether Uber can ever be held directly liable, but whether the specific facts of a given driver’s background and the company’s screening conduct support the claim.

The serious injury practice at Herrera PLLC evaluates rideshare cases with this dual-track approach in mind: the insurance coverage analysis under Chapter 1954, and the independent negligent hiring analysis under Chapter 2402, recognizing that these are two separate legal questions that can each meaningfully affect the value and viability of a claim.

Frequently Asked Questions About Suing Uber Directly in Texas

Can I sue Uber the company, not just the driver, if their driver injured me in Texas?

In certain circumstances, yes. While Uber’s classification of drivers as independent contractors generally limits vicarious liability for a driver’s ordinary negligent driving, Texas law recognizes a separate theory, negligent hiring, that targets Uber’s own conduct in screening and approving drivers. This theory does not depend on the driver’s employment classification. If Uber allowed a driver with a disqualifying background onto the platform, or failed to remove a driver after learning of disqualifying conduct, a direct claim against Uber may be available regardless of the contractor classification.

Why does it matter that Uber classifies its drivers as independent contractors in a Texas injury case?

The independent contractor classification under Texas Occupations Code Section 2402.114 limits vicarious liability, the legal doctrine that would otherwise hold Uber responsible for a driver’s ordinary negligent driving simply because of an employment relationship. It does not eliminate Uber’s potential liability for its own conduct, including negligent hiring and retention of drivers. Understanding this distinction is essential because most general descriptions of rideshare liability stop at the contractor classification without explaining that a separate, independent legal theory still applies to the company directly.

What does Texas law require Uber to check in a driver’s background before allowing them on the platform?

Texas Occupations Code Chapter 2402 requires transportation network companies to conduct a local, state, and national criminal background check using a commercial multistate database, a check of the national sex offender public website, and a review of the driver’s driving record, before allowing the driver onto the platform, with criminal background checks repeated periodically thereafter. Section 2402.107 establishes specific disqualifying criteria, including certain DWI convictions within the preceding seven years, more than three moving violations within the preceding three years, and certain felony convictions.

What is a negligent-hiring claim against Uber and how does it work in Texas?

A negligent hiring claim argues that Uber failed to exercise reasonable care in screening, approving, or continuing to allow a specific driver access to its platform, and that this failure contributed to an injury. Establishing the claim typically requires showing that the driver had a disqualifying history, that a proper background check would have or did reveal it, that Uber’s conduct in screening or retaining the driver fell below a reasonable standard of care, and that this failure is connected to the injury that occurred. This theory is separate from and independent of any insurance coverage period analysis, and is not limited by the general Texas statute that protects employers from claims based solely on a worker’s prior conviction, since that protection applies only to employees, not independent contractors.

If the Uber driver who hit me had a criminal record or prior accidents, does that make Uber liable in Texas?

Not automatically. Whether a driver’s history supports a viable negligent hiring claim depends on whether that history falls within the statutory disqualifying criteria under Section 2402.107, or otherwise should have put Uber on notice of a risk through complaints or prior incidents, and whether a proper background check or reasonable monitoring would have revealed it. The connection between the specific prior conduct and the type of harm that occurred also matters. A thorough review of the driver’s background and Uber’s own records is typically necessary to assess whether this theory applies to a specific case.

Two Questions, Not One

The independent contractor classification answers one question: can Uber be held vicariously responsible for a driver’s ordinary negligent driving. In most cases, the answer is no. But that is not the only question a rideshare injury case raises. The second question, whether Uber acted reasonably in deciding who to let onto its platform and whether to keep them there, is entirely separate, and Texas law under Occupations Code Chapter 2402 gives it real statutory weight.

For anyone injured by a rideshare driver in Texas who has been told that Uber bears no responsibility because the driver is a contractor, speaking with an attorney who evaluates both the coverage analysis and the negligent hiring pathway is a meaningful way to understand whether that conclusion is actually the full picture.

Jonathan Herrera, J.D. is a Houston-based attorney who represents seriously injured Texans, including rideshare accident victims, across the state. Before practicing law, he spent over a decade as a licensed insurance adjuster managing high-exposure casualty claims for carriers and third-party administrators across multiple states. He is the founder of Herrera PLLC and a member of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association and the American Association for Justice.