The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on Sept. 18 that DoorDash owed a general duty of care to a motorist who was badly injured when one of its delivery drivers allegedly ran a stop sign and struck his pickup truck. The decision reverses a Porter Superior Court ruling that had thrown out the motorist's independent negligence claim against the company and sends the case back for further proceedings.
The ruling does not find DoorDash liable for the crash. At this early stage, the court had to accept the allegations in the complaint as true, and it held only that the claim can legally move forward. Still, the opinion signals that the way a delivery app pays and directs its drivers may be treated as a road safety issue, not only a matter of one driver's choices.
For anyone who drives, walks, or bikes near constant delivery traffic, the question is practical. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 3,208 people were killed in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2024.
A Crash, a Driver Who Left, and a Claim About App Design
According to the Court of Appeals of Indiana opinion, the crash happened just before 5 p.m. on July 31, 2020, where County Road 550 West meets State Road 149. Trey Culvey, who was delivering a DoorDash order, allegedly drove through a stop sign and hit the driver's side of Brian Oller's pickup. The truck rolled, Oller was ejected, and the truck landed on top of him.
Witnesses pulled Oller from beneath the truck and resuscitated him. Culvey then left the scene on foot to finish the delivery, according to the complaint. Oller sued both Culvey and DoorDash in June 2022.
His independent negligence claim targets DoorDash's business model. It alleges that drivers, known as Dashers, are paid by order volume, that tips depend on delivery speed, and that the app requires frequent phone use while driving without safeguards against distraction. None of those allegations have been proven in court.
DoorDash asked the trial court for partial judgment on the pleadings. It argued that, as a cellphone carrier cleared in a 2004 Indiana case, it is a technology company with no duty to other motorists. The trial court agreed.
Judges Point to Foreseeable Harm on Public Roads
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Felix said the cellphone case did not settle the question. Unlike a carrier that simply sells phones, DoorDash allegedly requires and financially rewards Dashers for using its app while making deliveries.
The panel described the relationship between DoorDash and other motorists as indirect and attenuated. It found, however, that foreseeability and public policy favored recognizing a duty. A crash with an app-based delivery driver, the judges wrote, is "a predictable byproduct of a delivery network company's business."
The court acknowledged that Culvey had his own duty to drive safely. "But on the facts as alleged in Oller's complaint, the buck does not stop with Culvey," the opinion states.
The judges also set limits. They described the obligation as "a duty to not financially incentivize dangerous conduct that would harm motorists," not a blanket duty to protect all motorists, and said it does not amount to strict liability.
Everyday Road Risk Behind the Legal Fight
Federal crash data show why the case matters beyond one Indiana intersection. NHTSA's 2024 distracted driving research notes 2,955 fatal crashes involving distraction that year, or 8% of all fatal crashes, and an estimated 315,167 people injured. Another 639 pedestrians, cyclists, and other people outside vehicles were killed in those crashes.
Cellphone use was involved in 14% of fatal distraction-affected crashes in 2024, up from 12% in 2023, according to the National Safety Council's analysis of federal data. NHTSA notes that distraction may be underreported in some states and overreported in others because police crash reports vary.
The court did not review any data on crash rates among DoorDash drivers. Whether the app's design actually increases crashes is a factual question the case has not yet reached.
Anyone in a crash with a delivery driver should call 911, get a medical evaluation even if they feel fine, and record the driver's name, vehicle, and delivery app. Drivers can lower their own risk by accepting orders only while parked and following their state's distracted driving laws.
Discovery Dispute Returns to Porter County
The trial court must now deny DoorDash's motion and reconsider Oller's motions to compel discovery. Those motions could determine whether he gains access to internal company information about how drivers use the app. DoorDash may ask the Indiana Supreme Court to review the decision. MedicalDaily could not find a public statement from DoorDash on the ruling as of Sept. 22.
The ruling is narrow but significant: a delivery platform's business model and app design can now be tested in a negligence case in Indiana. Until that question is answered, the safest assumption on any busy street is that the driver next to you may be looking at a phone.
Key Questions Answered
What did the Indiana court decide? The Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled that DoorDash owed a general duty of care to the injured motorist. It reversed the trial court and allowed his independent negligence claim to proceed.
Does this mean DoorDash caused the crash? No. The court accepted the complaint's allegations as true for legal purposes only. No court has found that DoorDash's business model or app caused the crash.
Why does app design matter for road safety? The lawsuit alleges that pay tied to speed and frequent app use while driving encourage distraction. Those claims have not been proven.
Who is most affected by distracted driving crashes? Other motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and delivery workers themselves all face risk.
What should I do after a crash with a delivery driver? Call 911, seek medical care, and record the driver's details and the delivery app involved.
What happens next in the case? The case returns to Porter Superior Court, which must reconsider the plaintiff's discovery requests. DoorDash may seek further review.
