Is it possible to recover damages from Uber and other taxi services: whom to claim against and from whom to demand money for a car accident

The modern passenger transport market in Ukraine is practically monopolised by large digital platforms that officially position themselves as aggregators, not carriers. This status allows them to avoid direct responsibility for damage caused during order fulfilment. However, judicial practice already offers several approaches to resolving disputes related to car accidents, insurance payments, and consumer rights in this area. The main challenge remains determining the liable party under Articles 1187 and 1188 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

Legal Nature of the Aggregator: Information Platform vs. Carrier

According to explanations provided by representatives of information platforms in court hearings, an aggregator acts purely as an order platform. The platform does not lease vehicles, does not issue them to drivers, and has no employment relationship with them. Drivers register independently in the app based on a public offer.

Courts generally accept this position. In case No. 754/14286/23, the Desniansky District Court of Kyiv established that the aggregator is not liable for damage to a vehicle caused by the driver, as it is not the owner or possessor of a source of increased danger. Responsibility lies with the driver who directly operated the vehicle.

The Problem of Proving Commercial Status: 'Taxi' or Private Ride?

The problem of proving a vehicle's commercial status is central in disputes regarding insurers' recourse claims under Article 38-1 of Law No. 1961-IV. Insurers often seek to recover 50% of the paid compensation, claiming that the driver used the vehicle in a sector with a higher adjustment coefficient (taxi) than specified in the contract.

Based on an analysis of practice, two different judicial approaches to solving this problem can be distinguished.

Strict Compliance with Regulatory Criteria

In case No. 461/1716/26, the Halytsky District Court of Lviv sided with the driver, emphasising that the status of a 'taxi' results from compliance with a set of organisational, technical, and legal criteria, not just external appearance.

The court ruled that the mere presence of an identifying 'checkerboard' sign on the car roof does not prove the conduct of economic activity for passenger transportation. A photograph does not allow identification of the actual provision of services in the manner prescribed by law.

To recognise a vehicle as a taxi, the insurer must prove the vehicle's compliance with Articles 1 and 39 of the Law 'On Motor Transport'. This includes:

• Possession of a transportation license.
• Equipped with a taximeter, signal lights (green/red), and "checkerboard" patterns on the doors.
• The driver having the appropriate permits, medical certificate, and service book.

The court considered the driver's arguments that the insurer had not provided evidence of an active order in the aggregator system at the time of the accident. Without passenger testimonies or transportation receipts, claims regarding "taxi" status remain assumptions upon which a court decision cannot be based.

Principle of Probability of Evidence and Branding

In case No. 309/2811/25, the Uzhhorod City District Court upheld the insurer's claim, applying the "probability of evidence" standard.

The court acknowledged that the presence of taxi service stickers on the front doors and the dispatcher's phone number on the rear window confirmed the systematic use of the vehicle for transportation. Unlike a removable "checkerboard" sign, stickers indicate the commercial nature of the vehicle's operation.

Key evidence was an extract from the Carrier Licensing Register, showing that a licence for this vehicle had been issued by order of Ukrtransbezpeka. This disproved the vehicle's designation for personal use, as stated in the policy.

The court noted that a circumstance is considered proven if the conclusion about its existence is more probable than the alternative. In this case, the combination of factors outweighed arguments about a private trip.

Limits of Liability of the Driver and Possessor of a Source of Increased Danger

In Ukraine's legal system, the limits of liability for damage caused by a source of increased danger (a vehicle) are determined not only by the fact of the accident but also by the legal status of the person possessing this source.

According to part 2 of Article 1187 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, damage caused by a source of increased danger is compensated by the person who lawfully possesses the vehicle on the appropriate legal basis (e.g., ownership right, other real right, lease agreement, contract for work). The possessor is a person who exercises actual control over the source of increased danger on legal grounds.

The possessor is liable for damage unless they prove it arose due to force majeure or the intent of the injured party (part 5 of Article 1187 of the Civil Code).

If the vehicle owner transferred the right of use and control to another person, for example, by handing over the registration certificate, and that person caused the accident, liability for the damage lies with the person who directly operated the vehicle at the time of the incident.

Taxi Aggregators and the Limits of Their Liability

Judicial practice clearly distinguishes between the activities of digital platforms and direct carriers.

Such aggregator companies are defined by the court as intermediaries acting purely as an order platform.

Therefore, the aggregator is not the possessor of a source of increased danger within the meaning of Article 1187 of the Civil Code and is not liable for damage caused by the driver during order fulfilment.

The Desniansky District Court of Kyiv issued a decision in case No. 754/14286/23, determining who is liable for damage to a vehicle used for passenger transportation through a platform. The court concluded that the driver who actually operated the vehicle must compensate for the damages, not the company.

The vehicle owner filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for material damage after her vehicle was damaged in an accident.

As a result of the case, the court fully satisfied the claim. The driver was ordered to pay UAH 160,875.32 for property damage, as well as the costs of professional legal assistance and court fees.

Judicial practice increasingly distinguishes between the roles of online ride-ordering platforms and direct carriers. As an analysis of court decisions shows, the mere fact of ordering a vehicle through an aggregator does not automatically impose liability on the platform.

Victims of accidents should correctly identify the defendant when preparing their claim. Judicial practice indicates that information platforms which solely provide order search are, in most cases, not recognised as proper defendants in disputes over damage compensation. Responsibility is usually assigned to the driver who operated the vehicle or their insurer.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua, follow SUD.UA on Google News , and join us on VIBER, WhatsApp, Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the important events.