The $40 million Uber wrongful death case exposes a problem the gig industry needs to address—and it isn’t necessarily about W-2 employment.
By Christopher George | The Gigman’s Life | October 24, 2026
Every time I hear somebody discussing the $40 million wrongful death award against Uber in California, I keep hearing the conversation drift toward the same tired argument.
Independent contractor versus employee.
W-2 versus 1099.
Whether Uber should have more control over its drivers.
And I’m sitting here thinking: Why are we making this an employment classification argument when the problem is something much more fundamental?
Training.
Not just providing somebody with a rule book, a link to a policy, or a checkbox that says they’ve read and understood everything.
I’m talking about reasonable, documented, verifiable, and tested training that establishes whether somebody actually understands the work they’re agreeing to perform.
Because being an independent contractor doesn’t mean you get to be an unqualified contractor.
And it certainly doesn’t mean the company hiring your services has no responsibility for establishing standards.
The $40 Million Wake-Up Call
In August 2023, 23-year-old Emily Normandin-Parker was killed after an Uber driver stopped on California State Route 73 and left her and another passenger in an unsafe area near a freeway exit.
The driver had stopped after one of the passengers became sick.
Instead of continuing to a safe location, he stopped in an area that the arbitrator later determined was unsafe and illegal.
Emily was subsequently struck and killed by another vehicle.
In 2026, an arbitrator awarded her parents $40 million, finding Uber responsible for the driver’s negligence.
Uber disputed the decision, arguing in part that its independent-contractor relationship with the driver limited its liability. The arbitrator rejected that position.
This was an arbitration decision, not a binding court precedent. But it raises questions the entire gig industry should be asking.
According to CalMatters, Uber even argued in its filings that it had no duty to train the driver beyond his existing driver’s license and background check because he was an independent contractor.
Think about that argument for a moment.
A valid driver’s license establishes that somebody meets the state’s licensing requirements to operate a vehicle.
A background check examines certain aspects of somebody’s history.
Neither one establishes that a driver understands the platform’s contractual responsibilities, passenger safety procedures, incident reporting requirements, or what to do when a ride goes wrong.
And that is exactly where training comes into the picture.
I’ve Been an Independent Contractor. This Isn’t a New Concept.
I’ve spent approximately ten years working in corporate security and another ten years in IT security.
I’ve also worked as a contractor.
And let me tell you something about contracting.
Just because you aren’t somebody’s employee doesn’t mean you walk into their business and get to do whatever the hell you want.
I’ve had to complete sexual harassment training.
I’ve had to complete data security training.
I’ve had to understand confidentiality requirements, security procedures, workplace expectations, and the rules for accessing certain facilities and systems.
Sometimes those requirements came from the company I was contracted to work with, not my direct employer.
And nobody needed to make me a permanent W-2 employee of that company just because they required me to meet their standards.
It was a condition of qualifying to perform the contracted work.
Companies have been doing this for decades.
Contractors are expected to meet qualifications. They may have to complete certifications, pass background checks, or demonstrate knowledge of procedures before they can begin working.
So why is it suddenly such a controversial idea when we’re talking about rideshare and delivery platforms?
California Already Recognizes This Distinction
Here’s something that makes the employee-versus-contractor argument even more interesting.
California’s Proposition 22, the very law that established an independent-contractor framework for covered app-based drivers, also requires safety training.
California Business and Professions Code Section 7459 requires network companies to provide training involving defensive driving, dangerous driving behaviors, recognizing and reporting sexual misconduct, and food safety for applicable delivery work.
And then there’s subsection (e).
It specifically establishes that efforts by a network company to promote public safety are not, by themselves, indicators of an employment or agency relationship.
In other words, California law already recognizes that a gig platform can provide safety training without that training automatically turning its contractors into employees.
That doesn’t settle every employment classification question in every state. But it directly undermines the idea that training and independent contracting are inherently incompatible.
Uber already provides California safety training materials. Its published regulatory training page includes an acknowledgment that drivers have reviewed the required information.
But that brings us right back to my central question.
What’s the difference between reviewing something and actually understanding it?
The Problem With “I Have Read and Understand”
How many times have you opened an app, encountered an agreement with page after page of legal language, scrolled through it, and clicked the box?
I have read and understand.
Really?
Did you understand the liability provisions?
The conditions for termination or deactivation?
The procedures for reporting an unsafe passenger?
The legal and contractual restrictions concerning recording?
The expectations surrounding service animals, child safety seats, or unsafe pickup and drop-off locations?
And if something happens, are you going to remember which section of the agreement told you what to do?
A checkbox documents acknowledgment.
It does not necessarily demonstrate comprehension.
I’m not suggesting everybody needs a college course in rideshare driving or food delivery.
I’m suggesting that the companies expecting people to work under their platforms should be able to demonstrate that those people understand the essential responsibilities of the work.
That’s not an unreasonable qualification.
That’s basic risk management.
Let’s Talk About Real Situations
Imagine you’re a rideshare driver.
Your passenger becomes sick while you’re traveling on a highway.
What do you do?
Do you stop immediately?
Do you require them to exit the vehicle?
Do you continue to the next safe exit?
What happens if the passenger refuses to cooperate or becomes aggressive?
What procedures does the platform expect you to follow? When should you call emergency services?
Those are not questions a driver should be figuring out for the first time while sitting on the shoulder of a highway.
Now let’s talk about delivery work.
The Olivia Henderson case in Oswego, New York, provides another example of why training on privacy, evidence handling, and incident reporting matters.
Henderson, a former DoorDash driver, was charged after allegations that she recorded and publicly shared video of a customer inside his residence. She pleaded not guilty, and the criminal allegations should not be treated as established guilt.
But regardless of how that case is ultimately resolved, it presents important questions every delivery platform should address through training.
What are you permitted to record?
What should you do if you believe a customer is engaging in inappropriate conduct?
Who should receive that evidence?
What can you legally and contractually publish?
What should you do if you encounter somebody who appears unconscious or in distress?
And how do you protect yourself without violating somebody else’s privacy?
Those are practical questions with real-world consequences.
They shouldn’t be buried somewhere in a lengthy agreement that somebody acknowledged three years ago.
Training Needs to Be Documented and Tested
Here’s what I would like to see every major gig platform implement.
First, paid training. If a company requires you to spend time learning its specific procedures as a condition of performing work, it should compensate you for that required time. Payment can be structured within applicable laws without automatically requiring a traditional employment relationship.
Second, actual testing. Not just a video followed by an acknowledgment. Present realistic scenarios and ask what the contractor should do. Make sure they understand before allowing them to proceed.
Third, verifiable records. Document which training modules a contractor completed, which versions of the policies were covered, and whether the contractor successfully passed the required assessments.
Fourth, accessible instruction. Provide training in understandable language and formats, including written, audio, and video options where appropriate.
Fifth, periodic updates. If the platform changes its rules, contractors should receive clear instruction about those changes. Major changes should require renewed acknowledgment and, where appropriate, testing.
Finally, accountability in both directions. The contractor should be held responsible for following policies they’ve been properly trained on. But the platform should also be accountable for communicating those policies, maintaining accurate records, investigating complaints, and applying its standards consistently.
And contractors should have access to their own training and certification records, particularly when appealing a complaint or deactivation.
This is not about controlling what time somebody starts working or how many trips they accept.
This is about understanding the responsibilities attached to a service they’ve agreed to provide.
Paying for Training Is Cheaper Than Ignoring the Problem
I can already hear the objections.
Training costs money.
It takes time.
People might complete the training and never actually perform a trip.
Fine. Then design a reasonable onboarding system that accounts for that possibility, while following applicable payment laws.
Gig platforms already track virtually every aspect of our activity.
They know when we accept a trip.
They know when we complete a delivery.
They maintain records of our ratings, complaints, cancellations, and other performance indicators.
Are we really going to pretend that creating a documented training and certification system is beyond the technical capabilities of these companies?
Especially considering the possible financial consequences when something goes terribly wrong?
One case has resulted in a $40 million award to a passenger’s parents.
That should be enough to make companies seriously examine the cost of prevention.
Training won’t prevent every accident, every bad decision, or every act of misconduct.
But it can reduce avoidable confusion and establish that people were taught the correct procedures.
And training must be supported by actual enforcement. A company that ignores documented safety complaints cannot solve that problem simply by making its contractors complete another video.
Stop Making Every Safety Discussion About W-2 Employment
This is where I find myself disagreeing with the way some gig industry commentators frame these situations.
Every time something goes wrong, the discussion seems to become another argument about turning independent contractors into employees.
That is a separate issue.
There are legitimate legal and economic disagreements over employment classification. And training requirements alone do not determine somebody’s classification.
But we don’t need to resolve that entire debate before asking platforms to provide effective instruction.
I’m perfectly capable of running my own independent business while agreeing to meet another company’s reasonable qualifications.
I’m perfectly capable of choosing when I work while being expected to understand passenger safety requirements.
And I’m perfectly capable of refusing an assignment while still having contractual responsibilities for one I’ve accepted.
Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Independent contracting is about the nature of the business relationship. It isn’t permission to operate without standards.
The Responsibility Goes Both Ways
Here’s another thing I want people to understand.
I am not suggesting that drivers and delivery workers should be absolved of personal responsibility.
Quite the opposite.
If a contractor has been properly trained, tested, and informed about the rules, then that contractor should be expected to follow them.
But the platform cannot reasonably claim to take safety seriously if its system depends primarily on people discovering important policies after an incident.
A company can establish qualifications without dictating every aspect of how an independent contractor operates.
It can require documented safety knowledge without automatically creating an employment relationship.
And it can invest in meaningful training without pretending a checkbox is the same thing as certification.
That doesn’t mean training eliminates a company’s liability or a contractor’s liability. It means both parties have a better understanding of their responsibilities before something goes wrong.
My Final Thought
For years, these gig platforms have built increasingly sophisticated systems for matching customers with drivers, calculating prices, monitoring performance, and distributing assignments.
Perhaps it’s time to put some of that technology toward making certain that the people performing the work actually understand what they’ve agreed to do.
Not just what the company can expect from them.
But what the contractor can expect from the company.
What the contract requires.
What the contract does not require.
What their rights are.
What their obligations are.
And what procedures to follow when things don’t go according to plan.
A checked box means somebody clicked a button.
A completed assessment means somebody demonstrated at least a basic understanding of the material.
Those are two very different things.
And when we’re talking about transporting people, entering private property, handling personal information, and dealing with potentially dangerous situations, that difference matters.
We don’t need to turn every contractor into an employee to establish reasonable standards.
We need to start treating contractors like professionals who deserve proper information, clear expectations, and the opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications.
Because the question shouldn’t simply be whether somebody agreed to the contract.
The question should be whether they understood what they agreed to do.
The Gigman’s Life — Independent thinking about gig work, technology, and the world around us.
Sponsored by TheGigmansLife.com. Also known as my wallet.
Sources and further reading