Abner v. Lyft Florida, Inc., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2301 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 22, 2025):
A Lyft driver collided with the plaintiff’s motorcycle. The plaintiff settled with the driver and pursued Lyft for vicarious liability and negligent hiring/retention, arguing that the driver was Lyft’s agent/employee and that Lyft should have removed him based on complaints and citations. Lyft moved for summary judgment relying on the Transportation Network Companies statute, section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2017), which had gone into effect just four days before the crash.
The Third District held that the applicable law is the statute in effect when the cause of action accrues, so the TNC statute applied because it was in force on the date of the accident, regardless of when Lyft first approved the driver.
Under section 627.748(9), a TNC driver is an independent contractor, not an employee, if four conditions are met. (a) The TNC does not unilaterally prescribe specific hours during which the TNC driver must be logged on to the TNC’s digital network; (b) The TNC does not prohibit the TNC driver from using digital networks from other TNC’s; (c) the TNC does not restrict the TNC driver from engaging in any other occupation or business; and (d) the TNC and TNC driver agree in writing that the TNC driver is an independent contractor with respect to the TNC.
The court focused on whether Lyft “restricted” the driver from engaging in other occupations by language in the Terms of Service saying he would not operate as a taxi or public carrier while providing Lyft services. Reading that provision together with a clause expressly giving him complete discretion to engage in other business, the court held the agreement only limited what he could do while actually on the Lyft platform, not as to his ability to hold other jobs.
Because the statutory conditions were satisfied, the driver was an independent contractor, and Lyft was not vicariously liable for his negligence.
As to the negligent hiring/retention count, the court emphasized the TNC statute’s specific background-check and disqualification rules. The driver had no disqualifying convictions, and his post-approval traffic history consisted of a single reckless-driving citation and another speeding citation, plus two scattered passenger complaints (one two-star review with no detail and one more specific “felt scared” complaint).
Under any reasonable view of a TNC’s duty, the court found this evidence “patently insufficient” to create a jury issue on negligent hiring or retention. Because the proof could not survive a directed verdict, it could not defeat summary judgment, and the Third District affirmed.