Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
lyft-inc-respondent-and-christopher-d-morgan-and-ajane-barnes
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Personal Injury
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving Lyft, Inc., Respondent, and Christopher D. Morgan, and Ajane Barnes

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Rochelle Ameer appealed the dismissal of her product liability and negligence claims against Lyft, Inc., after her son, a Lyft driver, was killed during a carjacking initiated through the Lyft App. The trial court had dismissed the claims for failure to state a cause of action, finding the App was not a product and no duty existed. The appellate court reversed, holding that a mobile ridesharing application can be considered a product for product liability purposes and that the petition adequately alleged Lyft's duty to protect against third-party criminal acts, remanding for further proceedings.