San Francisco cabbie abandons passenger at ATM in high-crime area. $7.8M. San Francisco County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff attended a Technological Product Management conference on July 17, 2018. Towards the end of the day, he gathered with colleagues and drank cocktails at a conference-sponsored event, then went to Martuni's at Valencia and Market Streets in San Francisco. The group stayed until closing, approximately 1:30 a.m. Plaintiff's phone had died and he was unable to summon a rideshare, and so an intoxicated plaintiff, with the help of another conference attendee, secured a Yellow Cab to plaintiff's home in Berkeley.

  Within minutes of the ride beginning, the cab driver demanded plaintiff pre-pay for the ride and may have requested a cleaning fee under the impression that plaintiff's drunken state could cause him to vomit in the cab. Since plaintiff had insufficient cash on hand, the cab driver took plaintiff to 16th Street and Mission Street in San Francisco to withdraw cash from an ATM. The vicinity of Mission Street and 16th Street has one of -- if not the highest -- violent crime rates in San Francisco. In fact, the area is so crime-ridden and violent that Bank of America at 16th and Mission closes its ATM at 8:00 p.m. due to the danger posed to its customers when withdrawing cash. When plaintiff could not obtain cash from the closed ATM, the driver decided not to take plaintiff to his home in Berkeley nor even to another ATM and, instead, simply abandoned plaintiff at 16th and Mission. Plaintiff was in business attire, carrying his laptop backpack, and had his conference lanyard hanging from his neck when he was ejected from the cab in a visibly drunken state. Following his abandonment, plaintiff was beaten unconscious by several assailants who took his belongings and left him for dead.

  Plaintiff suffered an epidural hematoma because of the beating. The assailants were never identified.

   

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Defendant taxi driver Shumet Wudue wrongfully ejected plaintiff at 16th and Mission, one of the most dangerous places in San Francisco, where he was promptly robbed and assaulted. Defendant Shumet Wudue was liable for the subsequent assault, as it was reasonably foreseeable that abandoning an obviously intoxicated person at 16th and Mission would lead to a robbery. Wudue knew or should have known that the area was dangerous and that robbery was reasonably foreseeable.

  Additionally, Big Dog City Corporation is liable for failing to train and/or supervise Wudue, as well as vicariously liable as Wudue was Big Dog's agent. Plaintiff also contended defendants falsely imprisoned plaintiff.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants contended that plaintiff sought to travel 0.6 miles from Valencia and Market to 16th and Mission, and therefore there was no wrongful ejectment from the cab. Alternatively, defendants contended that a dispute arose, and plaintiff agreed to be let out at the intersection.

  Defendants contended that even if there was an ejectment, 16th and Mission is a safe place to involuntarily leave a passenger at 2:00 a.m. Alternatively, Big Dog City Corporation contended that any ejectment was justified because plaintiff allegedly did not pay for the cab ride or because he vomited in the cab. (Shumet Wudue had admitted in discovery that there was no justification for ejecting plaintiff.)

  Further, defendants contended that the criminal assault was a superseding event that cuts off defendants' liability, claiming that Yellow Cab and its driver, with many years' experience, could not have reasonably foreseen that leaving an intoxicated person at 16th and Mission would create a situation that a criminal would take advantage of.

  Defendants contended that plaintiff suffered the epidural hematoma not from being knocked unconscious for several minutes in the assault, but instead from a trip and fall that occurred later in the night. Alternatively, defendants contended that if plaintiff followed a treatment plan outlined in their expert Dr. Strickland's confidential report, he would be cured of his moderate TBI sufficiently to return to high-level work.

  The defendant contended that the defendant cab driver was not its agent.

  Also, defendants contended that the doctrine of laches bars plaintiff's suit, as defendants were joined in the case several years after the incident. The jury rejected all these contentions, and the court rejected the affirmative defense of laches.