In early February 2019, a drunken Uber passenger went into a rage, attacked his driver, and took control of the car. 
The driver sensibly fled from the vehicle as the criminal sped off and eventually crashed into a truck parked on the roadside.
The truck’s occupant sustained serious injuries as a result of the crash and, searching for the deepest pockets, filed a lawsuit in superior court against Uber and its casualty insurance company.
The case was dismissed by the trial judge for failure “to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
The injured motorist appealed the decision.
The Appeals Court upheld the lower court’s decision. 
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Uber is a “common carrier” and thus had a duty to both protect its passengers and those who come into contact with them.
A “common carrier” according to Black’s Law Dictionary is
a carrier that is required by law to transport passengers or freight, without refusal, if the approved fare or charge is paid.
While acknowledging that common carriers do owe a duty to their passengers, the justices refused to extend this obligation to non-passengers:
It is the long settled law of this Commonwealth that a common carrier owes to its passengers the highest degree of care in the anticipation and prevention of violence from its employees, other passengers, and even strangers, as is consistent with the nature and operation of its business. Even if we were to categorize Uber…as [a] common [carrier], a common carrier does not owe nonpassengers, like the plaintiff, a duty to prevent harm caused by the criminal conduct of its passengers. (Citations and quotations omitted.)
Thus, the Appeals Court rejected the plaintiff’s “common carrier” argument and upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.
The full opinion is attached below: