Is Waymo a Common Carrier Like a Taxi Under Florida Law?
Last updated: September 18, 2026
If you're hurt in a Waymo robotaxi in Miami, does Florida treat the ride the way it treats a taxi — with the heightened duty of care the law imposes on common carriers — or does it fall into the same lower-duty category the legislature carved out for Uber and Lyft? The honest answer is that Florida's own autonomous-vehicle statute answers this by cross-reference to the rideshare law, and the result is a real gap nobody has tested in court yet.
What Makes a Company a "Common Carrier" in Florida
Florida has never needed a single tidy statute defining "common carrier" for tort purposes — the doctrine comes from a century of case law. Florida courts have long held that a business which undertakes, for hire, to transport members of the public owes its passengers "the highest degree of care, foresight, prudence and diligence reasonably demanded" by the circumstances — not just ordinary reasonable care. That standard traces back to Florida Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 59 Fla. 260, 52 So. 963 (1910), and Florida's Supreme Court applied it specifically to a taxicab company in Swilley v. Economy Cab Co. of Jacksonville, 46 So. 2d 173, 177 (Fla. 1950). Buses, airport limousines, and cabs have all been held to this heightened standard, and a common carrier can't shed that duty simply by hiring an independent contractor to do the driving.
Why Uber and Lyft Are Not Common Carriers — By Statute, Not by Court Ruling
Rideshare companies argued for years that they shouldn't be held to that same heightened duty, since (in their telling) they're just a booking app, not a transportation company. Florida didn't leave that argument to the courts — the Legislature settled it directly. Section 627.748(2), Florida Statutes, states plainly that "a TNC or TNC driver is not a common carrier, contract carrier, or motor carrier and does not provide taxicab service." That carve-out has since been tested and upheld: in October 2025, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal — in the state's first appellate ruling on the statute — confirmed the law's liability protections for rideshare companies in Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc., No. 3D24-0479, 2025 WL 2969993 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 22, 2025).
The Wrinkle: The Statute Was Written for a Human Driver
Here's where Waymo doesn't fit neatly into either box. Section 627.748(1)(g) defines a "TNC driver" as an individual who receives ride connections through the network and personally provides the ride. A Waymo vehicle has no individual behind the wheel — there's no "TNC driver" in the statutory sense at all, because there's no person.
Florida's autonomous-vehicle law, § 316.85, was written to fill exactly that gap. It provides that a licensed human operator isn't required to operate a "fully autonomous vehicle," that the automated driving system itself is deemed "the operator" when engaged, and — critically for this question — that "an on-demand autonomous vehicle network shall operate pursuant to state laws governing the operation of transportation network companies... as defined in s. 627.748, except that any provision of s. 627.748 that reasonably applies only to a human driver does not apply" to a fully autonomous vehicle logged onto such a network. Fla. Stat. § 316.85(4).
So Does the "Not a Common Carrier" Exemption Survive That Exception?
This is the actual legal question, and it turns on how you read that carve-out. Section 627.748(2)'s common-carrier exemption is written to cover two different things: "a TNC" (the company) or "a TNC driver" (the individual). The "TNC driver" half of that sentence is meaningless as applied to Waymo, since there is no driver. But the "TNC" half — the part that says the company isn't a common carrier — isn't a provision that "reasonably applies only to a human driver." It's a statement about the company's legal classification, independent of who or what is behind the wheel.
Read that way, § 316.85(4) imports the whole TNC framework, including § 627.748(2)'s common-carrier exemption for the company, into on-demand autonomous vehicle networks — meaning Waymo, operating as (or through) a TNC in Florida, likely is not a common carrier any more than Uber or Lyft is. What's missing is any Florida appellate decision, or even a trial-court ruling, actually applying § 316.85(4) to this question. It is an untested reading of a still-new statute, not settled law, and a plaintiff's attorney could reasonably argue the opposite: that Waymo doesn't fit the definition of a "TNC" at all in the way the statute contemplated, given that the whole insurance and driver-vetting structure of § 627.748 was built around a human being who logs on, passes a background check, and drives.
Why the Answer Matters If You're Hurt in a Waymo
If Waymo is treated as a common carrier, an injured passenger only has to show ordinary negligence fell short of the "highest degree of care" standard — a lower bar than proving ordinary negligence against a private, non-carrier defendant. If Waymo instead gets the same treatment as Uber and Lyft, an injured rider is left arguing ordinary negligence against Waymo/Alphabet directly (for the automated driving system's decisions), against whoever owns or maintains the vehicle, and — where a third-party driver caused the crash — under Florida's comparative-fault framework, § 768.81. Fully autonomous vehicles still must carry the $1 million liability coverage required for TNC vehicles under § 627.749 regardless of which category applies, so there's no coverage gap — but which duty of care applies can still shape how a claim is built and argued.
FAQ
Is there a Florida court decision on whether Waymo is a common carrier?
No. This is a live, unresolved legal question. The closest precedent, Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc., addresses human-driven TNCs, not autonomous vehicles.
Does Waymo need special insurance in Florida?
Yes. Under § 316.85(4), a fully autonomous vehicle operating on an on-demand network must meet the same $1 million insurance requirement set out in § 627.749 for TNC vehicles.
Who's responsible if a Waymo crashes with no one driving?
Potentially several parties: the entity operating the vehicle as a TNC, the vehicle's owner, the manufacturer of the automated driving system, and any third-party driver at fault, apportioned under Florida's comparative-fault statute, § 768.81.
Does it matter whether a human safety monitor is in the vehicle?
It could. Florida law distinguishes a "fully autonomous vehicle" from other automated vehicles, and § 316.85(3)(a) deems the automated driving system the operator "regardless of whether a person is physically present" — but the presence of an attentive human monitor could still become a fact issue in a negligence claim.
Injured in a Waymo or Rideshare Accident in South Florida?
Autonomous vehicles raise legal questions Florida courts haven't answered yet, which is exactly when experienced representation matters most. This requires careful preparation to identify every liable party and build the strongest possible claim.
Call Dan: (954) 923-6110
With 25+ years of experience — including time on the insurance-defense side, so he knows how these companies build their defenses — Dan Reinfeld personally handles every case; there's no call center. Free consultations, no fee unless he recovers for you, with flexible options by phone, Zoom, or a hospital or home visit, including evenings and weekends.
Comments