Negligent Undertaking and TNC Safety Promises

Bottom line. Under CACI 450 and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, the TNC's voluntary safety promises — to review crash reports, to act on unsafe-driving complaints, to perform background checks, to deactivate drivers who violate the Community Guidelines — generate a duty of reasonable care. When the TNC performs those promises negligently and the failure either increases the risk of harm or the harm was suffered because of reliance on the undertaking, the TNC is liable.

---

The doctrine

Under CACI 450 and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A, one who voluntarily undertakes to render services for another may be liable for physical harm resulting from failure to exercise reasonable care. (Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 613; Paz v. State of California (2000) 22 Cal.4th 550.)

The elements:

1. The defendant undertook to perform a task for another.
2. The defendant should have recognized the undertaking as necessary for the protection of third persons.
3. The defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.
4. The failure either (a) increased the risk of harm, or (b) the harm was suffered because of reliance upon the undertaking.

"A volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to come to the aid of another" assumes a duty "to exercise due care in performance." (Artiglio, 18 Cal.4th at p. 613.)

---

The TNC's specific undertakings

TNCs make specific undertakings through their Community Guidelines, Rider Terms, and public marketing. They promise:

• To review reports of crashes and unsafe driving behavior.
• To deliver accountability through rider feedback.
• That unsafe driving activity can result in immediate loss of platform access.
• That drivers who violate Community Guidelines can lose platform access.
• That background checks are performed.
• That the platform meets safety standards reinforced by public marketing and safety branding designed to reassure riders.

These are not aspirational marketing statements. They are voluntary undertakings, and the TNC's safety-branded marketing is the most expensive piece of evidence the defense would prefer the jury never see.

---

Both prongs of § 324A are satisfied in most retention cases

Increased risk

Had the TNC actually reviewed the documented complaints as promised, the dangerous driver would have been deactivated and the plaintiff would never have been in his vehicle. The TNC's failure to perform the promised review increased the risk by leaving a known-dangerous driver in circulation when, if the safety promise had been honored, he would have been off the platform.

Reliance

The rider has no independent means of vetting drivers, no access to complaint history, and no way to evaluate the driver's safety record before getting in the vehicle. The reliance is not just reasonable — it is structurally compelled by the platform itself. The rider must trust the TNC's representations or not ride at all.

That structural reliance distinguishes the TNC context from cases where a plaintiff might have alternative safety information available. Here, the TNC has built the only channel through which the rider can encounter the driver, and the TNC has told the rider that channel is monitored for safety.

---

How the safety-promise evidence develops at trial

The undertaking record is built from the TNC's own documents:

• Community Guidelines in force at the time of the incident.
• Rider Terms the plaintiff agreed to (which include the safety-promise representations even where they include disclaimers elsewhere).
• Public marketing — billboards, app store descriptions, TV spots, and the safety microsites the TNC runs ("99.9% of trips end without a safety issue" and similar claims).
• The US Safety Reports Uber and Lyft publish, which are the most authoritative source for the safety-undertaking record.
• Internal training materials for the TNC's complaint-response teams.
• Internal documents addressing how the TNC measures whether it actually delivers on the safety promise (call them "deactivation analytics" — the TNC has them).

Use the discovery roadmap categories (6), (16), (17), and (18) to compel production.

---

Why this theory is Prop 22–proof

Negligent undertaking depends on the TNC's own conduct — its safety promises and its performance of those promises. The driver's classification is irrelevant. Whether the driver is an employee, an independent contractor, or some hybrid, the TNC's voluntary undertaking to perform safety services for the protection of riders generates the duty. Proposition 22 does not touch this analysis.

---

How CACI 450 differs from direct negligence and negligent retention

Theory	What the TNC did wrong	Trigger
Direct negligence (§ 1714)	Created the risk through its affirmative conduct	TNC's own actions made the plaintiff's position worse
Negligent retention (CACI 426)	Failed to remove a worker known to be unfit	Knowledge or constructive knowledge of unfitness
Negligent undertaking (CACI 450)	Performed a voluntary safety undertaking negligently	TNC undertook to provide safety services and failed

The three theories are independent but overlap on facts. Plead all three. A jury that does not credit one may credit another. A defense win on one summary judgment motion does not dispose of the case.

---

Practitioner playbook

1. Identify every safety undertaking on the platform. Community Guidelines, Rider Terms, marketing materials, US Safety Report representations, training materials. Use the discovery roadmap categories (6), (16), (17), and (18).
2. Pin the undertakings to the case-specific failures. "Uber promised to review reports of unsafe driving. Uber received [N] reports about this driver. Uber did not deactivate him. He then injured the plaintiff."
3. Use the US Safety Reports. They are public, authoritative, and devastating in front of a jury.
4. Show structural reliance. The rider had no alternative source of driver safety information. The platform was the only channel.
5. Frame the undertaking as a promise to the public, not a contract with the rider. This defeats the standard "ToS limits our duty" argument.
6. Pair with direct negligence and negligent retention. The three direct-liability theories survive Prop 22 in full.

---

See also

• Hub: The Seven-Theory Framework
• Direct Negligence Against Uber/Lyft (§ 1714; Kuciemba)
• Negligent Retention of Unfit TNC Drivers (CACI 426)
• TNC Discovery Roadmap — 24 Categories
• Proposition 22 Is a Labor Statute, Not a Tort Immunity

---