A ride-share driver's vehicle caused me injury. Is the platform liable?

What the Law Says

Australian law distinguishes between employees and independent contractors when determining whether a platform can be held liable for a driver’s actions. Vicarious liability — where an employer is held responsible for an employee’s wrongful acts — does not automatically apply to ride-share drivers because they are typically engaged as independent contractors.

Under common law, vicarious liability arises only if a person is found to be an employee (or agent) acting in the course of employment. Ride-share platforms like Uber and DiDi argue — and courts have often accepted — that drivers control when, where, and how they work, making them independent contractors.

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) provides guidance on worker classification but does not directly impose liability on platforms for personal injury. Instead, it focuses on rights like minimum pay and protections — not tort liability.

Importantly, the High Court has confirmed that the 'control test' remains central: if the platform does not direct *how* the work is performed (e.g., route choice, vehicle maintenance, or service delivery method), it is unlikely to be held vicariously liable.

Statutory Text

A person who performs work for another is not necessarily an employee; the nature of the relationship must be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances.

— Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 — High Court of Australia

Statutory Text

The critical question is whether the person performing the work is doing so as an independent contractor or as an employee.

— Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s. 15AA — Meaning of employee

What to Do

Sources