In a surprise development, the 26-year old woman who was allegedly raped by an Uber driver in December last year “voluntarily” dismissed the lawsuit she had filed in a US court against the web-based taxi company on Tuesday.
The woman’s lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, submitted in a brief notice in the court of Northern District of California that the victim was dismissing the lawsuit against Defendant Uber Technologies “with prejudice. Each side shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Since Indian laws prevent rape survivors’ names to be made public to protect the women and their families from social stigma, the Uber rape victim had been named in the lawsuit as ‘Jane Doe’.
Interestingly, the court docket sheet did not mention the reasons for the withdrawal of the lawsuit or the terms of the settlement. When contacted, both Wigdor as well as the rape survivor’s family declined to comment on the matter. Uber official Karun Arya, too, in an email declined to comment on the matter.
The woman had filed a lawsuit against Uber in January this year, accusing Uber of not maintaining the required safety standards, not adequately screening its drivers and “negligence and fraud” that lead to her being sexually assaulted.
The lawsuit had sought an unspecified amount of damages and compensation for the “physical and monetary” harm suffered by the woman and the damage to her “professional and personal reputation” the assault had caused.
After the lawsuit was filed, Wigdor, in a statement had held Uber responsible for the “significant physical and emotional harm” caused to the woman, while simultaneously seeking a court order “mandating that Uber initiate certain safety precautions that they appear unwilling to do voluntarily,” he had said.
The lawsuit had also said that had Uber done a basic background check on the accused driver Shiv Kumar Yadav, it would have found that Yadav had provided fraudulent documents and had a “known propensity” for “violent and deviant conduct, including numerous arrests for rape and assault.”
Describing the events of the night the incident happened, the lawsuit had mentioned how Yadav had repeatedly threatened to kill the victim by “inserting a metal rod inside her,” – a horrific reminder of the December 16 Delhi gangrape which had lead to the death of a 23-year old medical student.
In April, Uber had sought the dismissal of the lawsuit, saying the woman was taking action against the “wrong party” and it does not have any relationship with the driver. Uber had said that while there is “no question” that the alleged crime is “deplorable”, the law requires that all plaintiffs should pursue their claims against the right party or “those legally responsible for the harm”.
“Plaintiff’s counsel has chosen to sue only Uber Technologies, which never had any relationship with Yadav, the alleged assailant,” Uber had said in the motion, adding that Yadav’s only contractual relationship with any Uber entity was with Uber BV, a Dutch company not party to the suit.
Wigdor had said the company’s move to dismiss the lawsuit was an “obvious attempt” to deflect responsibility and the ride-sharing firm will be held accountable for its actions.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)