For years, Uber and Lyft have relied on one central strategy to avoid responsibility when their drivers cause harm: insisting their drivers are “independent contractors,” not employees. In 2020, with Proposition 22, the companies went a step further by drafting a new, highly favorable test designed to make proving employee status nearly impossible.
Prop. 22 passed, and its language ultimately found its way into the official California civil jury instructions, CACI 3704, suggesting that courts should use that test instead of the long-standing “right to control” test found in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 342 (1989) when determining employee status in tort cases. The problem? No California appellate court had ever held that Prop. 22 applied to vicarious liability in personal injury cases. Prop. 22 was drafted to address wage-and-hour issues, not tort law,yet the rideshare companies were already pointing to the modified instruction to argue otherwise.
Recognizing what was at stake for injury victims across California, PSR attorney Andrew Owen wrote to the Judicial Council of California urging removal of the Prop. 22 language. He emphasized that the plaintiffs’ bar unanimously agreed: Prop. 22 does not, and should not, control whether Uber and Lyft are responsible for the negligence of their drivers.
After careful review, the Judicial Council agreed.
The Result
CACI 3704 has now been restored to its pre-Prop. 22 form. All references to Prop. 22 have been removed from the “Directions for Use,” and the controlling law remains unchanged: the Borello test, which focuses on the actual right to control the work performed—not a rideshare-drafted shortcut designed to sidestep accountability.
Why This Matters
This is far more than just a technical win. It safeguards the ability of injured people to hold billion-dollar rideshare companies accountable when their drivers cause serious harm. It prevents Prop. 22 from quietly expanding beyond its intended scope, and it ensures that juries and judges continue to apply the law that actually governs vicarious liability -not one written by the very companies trying to avoid it.
This victory reinforces a simple but vital principle in California tort law: corporations that profit from transportation must also bear responsibility when that transportation injures people.
Change Starts With Action
Change demands action, not silence or complacency. When laws are misapplied, rights are ignored, or injustice becomes routine, it is the responsibility of legal professionals to step forward—to challenge, to advocate, and to correct what is wrong. If there are jury instructions which do not comport with the law, send an email to the CACI Committee through the staff attorney, Eric Long Eric.Long@jud.ca.gov.