Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2019CI06788
CAUSE NO. _________
COMES NOW, JANE DOE, Plaintiff, who files this Original Petition, complaining
herein, and for their causes of action would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I. DISCOVERY TRACK
1.1 Plaintiff pleads that this case should be assigned to Discovery Level Three.
2.1 Plaintiff JANE DOE is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Bexar
County, Texas. Jane Doe brings suit in her individual capacity and under a pseudonym
located at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103 doing business in Bexar
County and the State of Texas and may be served with citation and a copy of this petition
by serving its Texas registered agent for service: CT Corporate System 1999 Bryan St., Ste
Bexar County, Texas and may be served with process at his residence address, 7519 Pipers
the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, in that all or a substantial part of the events or
omissions complained of occurred within the boundaries of Bexar County, Texas, and
4.1 On or about July 14, 2018, Plaintiff, Jane Doe, requested an Uber ride home
from a Northeast Side sports bar in San Antonio because she was intoxicated after a night
of drinking. Uber driver and Defendant, Jacobo Manuel Gutierrez, responded to the ride
request and picked up Jane Doe. Prior to arriving at her home, Gutierrez pulled over into
an empty parking lot, got into the back seat, and made nonconsensual sexual contact with
Jane Doe. Uber’s Jacobo Gutierrez then drove Doe home, followed her inside, made
delegable duty to transport passengers safely, and therefore, is held to a high degree of
care. As a common carrier, Uber had a duty to do that which a very cautious, competent,
and prudent company would have exercised to avoid harm to others under the same or
5.3 The negligent, careless and reckless disregard of said duty of Uber
Page 2
Technologies, Inc., consisted of, but is not limited to, the following acts and omissions:
Defendant Gutierrez;
(f) In failing to ensure the safety of Jane Doe and provide safe transit to
her; and
5.4 These acts and omissions, singularly and collectively, when viewed
objectively involve an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude
of the potential harm to others, when and even though its vice principals, officers and
employees, had actual subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless
proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others.
Accordingly, Defendant has committed gross negligence and should be held accountable
as such.
B. RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
5.5 At all relevant times Jacobo Gutierrez was acting within the course and
scope of his employment and/or agency with Uber. In addition, at all relevant times
Gutierrez was under the direct control and supervision of Uber. As a result, Defendant
Page 3
Uber Technologies, is responsible for Gutierrez’s conduct under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
5.6 At all relevant times, Jacobo Gutierrez and Uber had an agreement to
provide transportation services for profit, a common purpose to make profit while
Accordingly, Uber is liable for Gutierrez’s conduct under the theory of joint enterprise.
5.7 At all relevant times, Jacobo Gutierrez and Uber had a joint interest in
agreement to share losses, and a mutual right of control of management of the venue.
Accordingly, Uber is liable for Gutierrez’s conduct under the theory of joint venture.
E. NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING
have known were necessary for Jane Doe’s protection, including but not limited to
implementing measures and practices for rider safety. Uber did not exercise reasonable
care in performing those services. Jane Doe relied on Uber’s performance of those
services. Further, Uber’s negligent performance of those services increased Doe’s risk of
F. FRAUD
5.9 Uber Technologies made representations to Doe which were material and
false, including but not limited representations that Uber had implemented measures and
practices for rider safety. At the time representations were made, Uber knew them to be
and without knowledge of its truth. Uber Technologies made these representations with
Page 4
the intent that Plaintiff would act and rely on them. Doe relied on Uber’s representations.
G. FRAUD BY NONDISCLOSURE
5.10 Uber Technologies concealed from Doe and failed to disclose to Doe
material facts which they had a duty to disclose. These material facts include, but are not
limited to,
(a) Uber allows it drivers to access its platform without conducting adequate
screening or interviews;
(b) Uber believes that they have no responsibility for the conduct of its drivers;
(d) Uber does not monitor trips for passenger safety; and
5.11 At the time that Doe hailed the Uber driven by her assailant, Doe was
unaware of these facts and did not have an opportunity to discover them herself.
Nevertheless, Uber was deliberately silent despite having a duty to speak. By failing to
disclose these facts, Uber intended to induce Doe into riding with Uber and not seeking
out another means of transportation. Doe was injured as a result of acting without the
A. ASSAULT
Page 5
B. NEGLIGENCE
7.2 Defendant Gutierrez had a duty to act like reasonably prudent person
would have under the same or similar circumstances. Gutierrez failed to act like a
reasonably prudent person would have under the same or similar circumstances, and
such failure and breach of that duty was a proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries.
VIII. DAMAGES
8.1 As a result of the incident in question, Plaintiff has sustained both past and
future, physical impairment, both past and future, physical pain and mental anguish, and
both past and future, disfigurement. Nearly all of the elements of damages for personal
injury are unliquidated and, therefore, not subject to precise computation. Plaintiff seeks
to recover damages in amounts that the jury finds the evidence supports and that the jury
finds to be appropriate under all of the circumstances, which said amount is in excess of
8.2 As a result of the gross neglect and malice by Defendants, said Defendants
X. JURY DEMAND
10.1 Plaintiff requests a trial by jury for all issues of fact and have submitted the
Page 6
XI. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
11.1 Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 194, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
Defendants are requested to disclose, within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the
information or material described in Rule 194.2 (a)-(l), inclusive of the information described
in Rule 192.3(f).
to appear and answer herein, that this cause be set down for trial before a jury, and that
Plaintiff recover judgment of and from the Defendants for her actual and exemplary
damages, jointly and severally, in such amount as the evidence may show and that a jury
interest, costs of suit, and such other and further relief to which she may show herself to
Respectfully submitted,
Roger Turk
SBN: 00788561
rlturk-svc@thomasjhenrylaw.com
Law Offices of Thomas J. Henry
521 Starr Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 985-0600
Facsimile: (361) 985-0601
Page 8