The Secci Regulated Hirer Exception in TNC Cases

Bottom line. Secci v. United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 846 establishes a regulated hirer exception that operates independently of Borello's control-of-details test. The exception applies whenever an entity is engaged in activity involving danger to the public, operates under government-imposed safety regulations, and holds a permit in aid of public safety. Uber and Lyft satisfy every element. The CPUC has expressly declared that TNC drivers "are clearly still agents connected with the firm."

---

What Secci held

Secci held that a taxi company was vicariously liable for its independent contractor driver's negligence, reversing a JNOV and reinstating the jury's verdict. The court established that vicarious liability may be imposed when an entity:

1. Is engaged in activity involving possible danger to the public;
2. Operates under government-imposed safety regulations; and
3. Holds a permit or license in aid of public safety.

(Secci, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 868.)

The court expressly rejected the TNC-style argument that government-required controls cannot support vicarious liability, calling it "not an accurate statement of California law." The contrary reading would "conflict[] with the policy behind the regulated hirer exception, which emphasizes that the effectiveness of public regulations would be impaired if the carrier could circumvent them by having the regulated operations conducted by an independent contractor." (Id. at pp. 860-861.)

---

Why every Secci element is satisfied for Uber/Lyft

Secci element	TNC application
Activity involving possible danger to the public	Operating a fleet of vehicles transporting passengers on public roads is a textbook public-danger activity.
Government-imposed safety regulations	The CPUC's TNC regulatory regime, including Decisions 13-09-045, 14-04-022, and 14-11-043, is government-imposed safety regulation.
Permit or license in aid of public safety	The TNC permit (Uber: TCP0038150-P; Lyft: TCP 32513) is a permit in aid of public safety. CPUC Decision 14-04-022 declares that "safety rules and regulations" should "hold TNCs accountable for safety."

---

Borello drops out

The reason Secci is so important to TNC plaintiffs is that it makes the Borello multifactor control analysis irrelevant for purposes of this theory. Defense counsel will try to drag the discovery and trial record onto the Borello field — driver app usage, scheduling autonomy, ability to drive for multiple platforms, and so on. Secci takes them off that field. The regulated hirer exception does not turn on control-of-details; it turns on the regulatory status the TNC voluntarily accepted when it took its permit.

Secci also reaffirmed that "agency and independent contractorship are not necessarily mutually exclusive legal categories . . . . an agent may also be an independent contractor." (Id. at p. 855, quoting Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1184.) Even accepting that the driver was an independent contractor under Proposition 22, that classification does not preclude a finding that he was the TNC's agent for purposes of vicarious liability. The Judicial Council's CACI 3705 codifies this principle.

---

The control profile in the TNC context is stronger than in Secci

If the Secci taxi company had enough control to be a regulated hirer, the TNCs have more than enough. The platform indicia of control include:

• Unilateral deactivation authority. The TNC can remove a driver from the platform at any time.
• Extensive Community Guidelines. Drivers must comply or lose access.
• CPUC-mandated training and background checks. Drivers cannot opt out.
• Required use of the TNC application. The driver does not pick up a passenger except through the app.
• TNC trade dress. The vehicle displays TNC branding.
• Ride matching, trip routing, fare calculation, payment processing, and rider feedback. Each is controlled by the TNC, not the driver.
• GPS geotracking. Multiple location pings per minute.
• Commission deduction. The TNC takes a percentage of every fare.

The CPUC has gone further. In Decision 14-04-022, the Commission declared directly that TNC drivers "are clearly still agents connected with the firm." That is not aspirational; it is a binding condition of the TNC's permit.

---

How Secci interacts with Proposition 22

Proposition 22 reclassifies app-based drivers as independent contractors "with respect to the app-based driver's relationship with a network company" (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7451). Secci holds that an independent contractor can still be an agent for vicarious liability purposes. The two doctrines are entirely compatible. Section 7451 sorts the bilateral labor relationship; Secci sorts the tripartite vicarious-liability question between the TNC, the driver, and the injured third party.

Even if § 7451 reached tort claims (it does not; see Prop 22 page), it would not displace Secci's regulated hirer exception, which does not depend on the absence of an independent-contractor label.

---

Practitioner playbook

1. Plead Secci as an independent theory. Do not bundle it with general respondeat superior.
2. Authenticate the CPUC permit and Decisions 13-09-045, 14-04-022, and 14-11-043 to establish the regulatory framework. Decision 14-04-022 contains the "clearly still agents" quote — make sure it appears in every brief.
3. Develop the platform-control record in discovery. Use the discovery roadmap, categories (5), (10), (15), (19), (20), and (23).
4. Cite Jackson v. AEG Live for the agent-can-also-be-independent-contractor principle. Defense counsel will resist this; the appellate authority is squarely against them.
5. Frame Borello as the defense detour. When the defense moves to compel Borello-style discovery on driver control, oppose with Secci and offer the platform-control record as sufficient under the regulated hirer framework.

---

See also

• Hub: The Seven-Theory Framework
• PUC § 5354 — Statutory Imputation Without Employment
• Common Carrier Nondelegable Duty (Civ. Code § 2100)
• Ostensible Agency in the TNC Context
• Proposition 22 Is a Labor Statute, Not a Tort Immunity
• TNC Discovery Roadmap — 24 Categories

---