Texas Uber & Lyft Sexual Assault Lawyer

Texas Law and Rideshare Sexual Assault: What the Statutes Say

A limitations period is the outer deadline the law sets for filing a civil lawsuit. Once it runs, the right to sue generally ends. Texas has more than one limitations period that can matter after a rideshare assault, and which one applies depends on the conduct involved.

The general rule sits in section 16.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. It reads: "Except as provided by Sections 16.010, 16.0031, and 16.0045, a person must bring suit for ... personal injury ... not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues." "Accrues" means the point at which the claim legally arises.

Section 16.0045 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is one of the exceptions that section 16.003 names. It allows five years to sue for personal injury arising from conduct that violates the Penal Code's sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault sections. Where the injury arises from conduct that violates section 22.011(a)(2) of the Penal Code, sexual assault of a child, the statute reads: "A person must bring suit for personal injury not later than 30 years after the day the cause of action accrues." Section 16.0045 also provides for tolling, which means pausing the clock, while a suit names an unknown defendant as John or Jane Doe.

For a young survivor, section 16.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code adds another rule. A person younger than 18 years of age, regardless of whether the person is married, is under a legal disability, and "the time of the disability is not included in a limitations period."

Many survivors do not report or seek help right away, and some only later begin to think about a civil case. Because every period above runs from the day a claim "accrues," the date a claim arose can itself become a question worth raising, particularly where time has passed. This page does not address every rule that may bear on that date, and it does not calculate anyone's deadline. The date of the ride and the survivor's age at the time are the kind of facts an attorney can use to sort out which period fits.

What Happens If the Driver Passed a Background Check?

Texas regulates rideshare companies, which its statutes call transportation network companies, in chapter 2402 of the Occupations Code. Two sections in that chapter bear directly on a sexual assault during a ride.

Section 2402.107 of the Occupations Code sets driver requirements. Before permitting an individual to log in as a driver on its digital network, a company must "conduct, or cause to be conducted, a local, state, and national criminal background check for the individual." That check must include the national sex offender public website maintained by the United States Department of Justice and the state sex offender website. Under the same section, a person convicted in the preceding seven years of an act of violence, among other listed offenses, or found on those websites, may not drive on the network. The company also "shall conduct or cause to be conducted an annual criminal background check" for each authorized driver.

Section 2402.114 of the Occupations Code addresses the driver's status. A driver authorized to log in "is considered an independent contractor for all purposes, and not an employee of the company in any manner," if the conditions that section lists are met.

These sections describe what Texas law asks of a company. For a survivor, what is at stake is whether the screening duties were met for the specific driver, a factual and legal question the evidence may address. The national page on Uber background check negligence explains how screening can come up in a claim.

Who May Be Responsible — and What a Claim Has to Show

The driver is the most direct possible defendant. A person who commits an assault can be sued in a civil court for the harm it caused, separate from any criminal case.

The rideshare company is a second possible defendant, on theories such as negligent hiring, negligent retention or negligent supervision. A negligence claim against a company comes down to four questions: did the company owe a duty, did it breach that duty, did the breach cause the harm, and what damages resulted. In a rideshare case, the duty questions often connect to screening and to what a company knew about a driver. An assault by a driver does not by itself prove that a company was at fault.

The independent-contractor rule in section 2402.114 is often raised in these cases. It is a legal issue a court examines in light of the conditions the section sets and the theory a claim relies on. It is not, on its face, a rule that ends every claim against a platform, because a negligent-hiring theory focuses on the company's own conduct rather than on whether the driver was an employee.

What is at stake, then, is whether a claim can reach beyond the driver to the company. What is known about the driver's history and the company's knowledge often shapes that answer, and an attorney can help assess whether those facts support each element. The rideshare sexual assault lawyer page covers the national picture, including federal multidistrict litigation, and the Uber sexual assault lawyer page covers that platform's litigation specifically.

If You Are Worried About Being Blamed: How Texas Divides Fault

Some survivors worry that something they did before or during a ride will be held against them. Texas has a specific rule for how fault is divided, called proportionate responsibility: the jury or judge assigns each party a percentage of responsibility for the harm.

Section 33.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code states: "In an action to which this chapter applies, a claimant may not recover damages if his percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent." Section 33.012 then provides that if the claimant is not barred, "the court shall reduce the amount of damages to be recovered by the claimant with respect to a cause of action by a percentage equal to the claimant's percentage of responsibility." The factfinder states each share in whole numbers, and it can attribute a share to the survivor, a defendant, a settling person or a responsible third party.

In a sexual assault case, a defendant may try to assign part of the responsibility to the person who was assaulted. Chapter 33 governs how such an argument would affect recovery if a factfinder accepted it. Chapter 33 also lists actions to which it does not apply, and whether any exclusion reaches a given claim depends on the facts and on the chapter's current text. A survivor concerned about this may raise it directly with an attorney, who can look at whether the chapter applies and how the evidence bears on any fault argument.

Records That May Help a Survivor Show What Happened

Much of what a claim can prove depends on records, and some of them sit with the platform rather than with the survivor. The app's trip record can show the route, timestamps and the driver's identity. In-app messages and calls between rider and driver may show what was said before or after the ride. The driver's background-check history, as the platform maintains it, may bear on the screening questions that section 2402.107 raises.

Outside the app, police or incident reports, if a report was made, describe what was recorded at the time. Medical records, including those from a forensic exam where one took place, document injuries and treatment. Witness names and contact information can matter too, whether a witness saw the ride, the drop-off or the person afterward.

Platform records may be subject to retention limits, meaning a company may not keep every record indefinitely. For a survivor, that means a trip record or message thread that could help explain what happened may not be available later. Some survivors choose to note what they already have, such as screenshots of the trip or messages, and bring them to a case evaluation. Whether and when to report, and whether to seek medical care or a forensic exam, are personal choices; none is a precondition to reading about the law.

Damages Texas Law May Allow After an Assault — and What They Depend On

A civil case cannot undo an assault, but the law does recognize several kinds of loss. Economic damages under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code cover losses such as medical expenses and lost earnings, while noneconomic damages cover harm that is not a bill or a paycheck. What any category may include depends on the evidence of the harm.

Exemplary damages are a separate category meant to punish, rather than repay, and chapter 41 limits them. Under section 41.008, exemplary damages "may not exceed an amount equal to the greater of: (1)(A) two times the amount of economic damages; plus (B) an amount equal to any noneconomic damages found by the jury, not to exceed $750,000; or (2) $200,000." In plain words, the ceiling is tied to the economic and noneconomic damages found, with $200,000 as the floor of that ceiling. That cap does not apply to a claim for exemplary damages based on conduct described as a felony in sections of the Penal Code that section 41.008 lists, including section 19.02 (murder), if the conduct was committed knowingly or intentionally.

Section 41.005 states that in an action arising from harm resulting from an assault or other criminal act, "a court may not award exemplary damages against a defendant because of the criminal act of another," subject to the exceptions that section lists. For a survivor, this bears on whether exemplary damages can reach a company, not only the driver.

The section 41.008 cap limits exemplary damages, not economic or noneconomic damages. Because recovery depends on proof of harm, some survivors keep track of medical bills, missed work and the effects of the assault on daily life, which an attorney can review in a case evaluation.

When a Death Results: Wrongful Death Under Texas Law

A family who has lost someone faces different rules from a survivor's own claim. A wrongful death action is a claim brought by family members for a death caused by another's wrongful act.

Section 71.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code states that the action "is for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, children, and parents of the deceased." Those family members may bring it, "or one or more of those individuals may bring the action for the benefit of all." If none of them has begun the action "within three calendar months after the death of the injured individual," the executor or administrator "shall bring and prosecute the action unless requested not to by all those individuals." Separately, section 71.021 provides that a personal-injury claim "does not abate because of the death of the injured person."

The deadline also differs. Section 16.003(b) requires suit "not later than two years after the day the cause of action accrues in an action for injury resulting in death," and "the cause of action accrues on the death of the injured person."

When grief and legal questions arrive together, a family may want to talk through who brings the claim and which dates count. A case evaluation request is one way to start that conversation with our attorney.

Questions Worth Asking Before a Case Evaluation

Going into a first conversation can feel daunting, and having a few questions written down can make it easier to cover the facts that decide deadlines, responsibility and damages.

Some people bring the date and location of the ride and the survivor's age at the time, and ask how those facts affect which deadline applies, including when the claim may be considered to have accrued if the assault was not reported right away.

Others bring whatever trip records, messages or screenshots they have, and ask what the company's own records might add about how the driver was screened, and whether the driver's contractor status matters for their claim.

If a survivor is worried that something about the ride will be used to shift blame, that worry is worth saying out loud. A family after a death often asks who in the family brings the claim. A conversation can address these questions; it does not promise any result.