On February 11, 2026, our office filed an opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by Lyft, Inc. Lyft filed their motion for summary judgment (basically, a motion to be dismissed entirely from the case) on the grounds that Lyft drivers are “independent contractors” rather than “employees,” and therefore Lyft cannot be held liable for the negligence of the driver who ran over our client’s foot.
Lyft’s motion for summary judgment is based on California Prop. 22, which was passed by voters through ballot measure in 2020. This law was upheld as constitutional by the California Supreme Court in 2024, and now the rideshare companies are aggressively trying to take advantage. Prop 22 states that all Lyft drivers, and other rideshare drivers (Uber, Doordash, etc.) are to be considered “independent contractors” and not “employees,” but only “with respect to” the driver’s relationship with the rideshare company.
Our office argued that Prop. 22 was only intended to address the rideshare driver status with respect to labor and wage and hour laws, NOT tort liability for auto accidents. This is clear based on the plain language of the statute as well as the legislative history behind it.
This issue represents an ongoing “cat and mouse” fight between plaintiff’s lawyers and the rideshare companies, and courts in California are currently split on their decisions. The hearing on Lyft’s motion will take place on March 3, 2026.