MISSOURI – Simon Law client Rochelle Ameer wants Lyft – a rideshare company – to be held accountable for its role in her son’s wrongful death.
Now, thanks to a Missouri Court of Appeals ruling, she is closer to seeing that happen not only for her son, but for others who have been injured or worse while working for or using rideshare companies.
Rideshare companies have argued for years that their apps are not tangible products, and, therefore, are immune from product liability lawsuits.
In a decision issued March 3, 2025, the Court unanimously reversed a trial court’s decision to dismiss Ameer’s wrongful death lawsuit against Lyft, finding for the first time in Missouri history that a rideshare app is a “product” and subject to Missouri’s product liability laws.
“Rideshare companies have worked hard to make sure consumers cannot take legal action against them even the negligence of a rideshare company causes injury or death,” said Johnny Simon of Simon Law. “This ruling significantly changes that and creates a path to hold these companies accountable through litigation for their negligent actions that have had real, tangible and harmful consequences.”
Simon Law argued Lyft’s app was defective by allowing the men who murdered Ameer’s son in September 2020 to create a fake identity unchecked and lure him to their location to carjack him.
Simon Law, along with Appellate Counsel Jon Taylor of Gupta Wessler, argued defects in Lyft’s app enabled would-be riders to carjack him, ultimately killing him.
In its appeal, Simon Law also argued Lyft has built in better protections for its drivers in other states – including adequate data verification technology pertaining to a passenger’s age, identity, or violent propensity; adequate GPS coordinate verification technology; and adequate data pattern analysis technology to identify potentially fraudulent or violent riders.
Andrew Ameer was just 27 years old when he answered what he thought was a call for a ride from a legitimate passenger in north St. Louis at about 11 p.m. Sept. 28, 2020. Instead, it was Christopher Morgan and Ajane Barnes, who were minors at the time and supposed to be ineligible to order rides through the Lyft App.
To hide their identity, Morgan and Barnes purportedly set up an account in the Lyft app using a false name, a false email address, and a gift card, or an anonymous form of payment. Morgan and Barnes then used their account in the app to fraudulently and anonymously request a ride to a destination miles away.
The Lyft app then directed the ride request to Andrew Ameer. Moments later, Morgan and another minor, V.W., announced a robbery and pulled guns on Ameer, attempting to force him to get out of his car.
Morgan subsequently shot and killed Andrew Ameer.
In other states, including Minnesota, Lyft requires passengers using the Lyft app with an anonymous form of payment to provide a driver’s license, state ID, or another type of document that shows their name or mailing address. That allows Lyft to determine whether a Lyft account exists and if the form of payment is verified.
Allowing Lyft to have those security features built into its app in some states and not others would incentivize Lyft and other mobile app developers to not put protections in place for Lyft drivers and customers in Missouri; and eliminate protections for its users in other states, according to Simon Law’s petition.
Simon Law also argued Lyft failed to train Andrew Ameer to identify particularly dangerous situations or people; and failed to offer him security measures in his vehicle such as a surveillance camera or a physical barrier between the front and backseats.
“Lyft should have realized through special facts within its knowledge that its omissions exposed plaintiff’s son to an unreasonable risk of harm through the conduct of third parties, like (Andrew Ameer’s) perpetrators, who were able to use the Lyft app to fraudulently and anonymously request a ride,” according to the ruling.
The Court also concluded, “Lyft had a duty to protect (Andrew Ameer) from harm,” and “that special facts and circumstances rendered (Andrew Ameer’s) injuries foreseeable to Lyft in this case.”
“Lyft brought (Andrew Ameer) into contact with persons Lyft knew or should have known to be particularly liable to commit criminal acts, and brought such contact under circumstances which afforded (Andrew Ameer’s) perpetrators a peculiar opportunity or temptation for such misconduct,” according to the ruling.
“On the one hand, the app provides and sells a transportation service which connects purported riders and Lyft drivers. On the other hand, Lyft’s role is different from a mere service provider because Lyft designed and placed the Lyft app into the stream of commerce for the general public, putting Lyft in the best position to control the risk of harm associated with the app caused by the design choices, similar to designers of defective tangible products,” according to the ruling.
The Court of Appeals cited precedent from the U.S. District Court of Kansas in Doe v. Lyft, 2024 WL 4651015. In that case, the plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by a Lyft driver, who had a criminal record, did not possess a valid driver’s license and fraudulently used another person’s driver’s license for their job application.
In that case, the court found the plaintiff met the aforementioned standard because the plaintiff alleged the design of the Lyft app itself was defective in that the app did not properly distinguish between the legitimate picture of the driver submitted with the job application and the picture of the individual on the driver’s license the driver fraudulently submitted with the application.
“We agree with the reasoning in Doe v. Lyft and similarly hold: (1) a mobile ridesharing application such as the Lyft App is a product subject to product liability law if the facts alleged establish that the application has sufficient similarities to a tangible product; and (2) in order to survive a motion to dismiss a product liability claim in a wrongful death case like the one here, the plaintiff must allege the decedent’s death resulted from a defect in the application itself, whether in the design or in the functionality of the app, rather than from problems with the application developer’s services or some other aspect of its business model,” according to the ruling.
Judges Robert Clayton III and Michael Wright concurred, with Judge John Torbitzky concurring with the principle opinions finding that the Lyft App is a product, but dissenting only partially that the allegations did not adequately plead a defect in the product.
“I am unconvinced that plaintiff’s allegations are anything other than an indictment of Lyft for its failure to secure its drivers by providing better checks on the validity of potential passengers. This is not a defect in the app, but a failure of Lyft as a service. In my view, for plaintiff to allege a defect in the Lyft app, the defect must arise from something that the app actually did defectively, not something that plaintiff alleges it should have done, but did not. Here, plaintiff alleges that the app was defective because it did not verify the assailants’ identity, but by plaintiff’s own admission, this is not something the Lyft app was ever intended to do,” Torbitzky wrote.
This ruling brings Rochelle Ameer one step closer to holding accountable the parties responsible for her son’s wrongful death.
Media Contact:
Christine Byers
Simon Law Director of Marketing & Communications
cbyers@simonlawpc.com
