TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – A former delivery driver for DoorDash – who was shot and injured while making a delivery – filed a lawsuit claiming the company failed to put “reasonable” safety measures in place.
Plaintiff Aiden E. Linnankivi, a resident of Leon County, filed his lawsuit June 8 in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County.
Linnankivi contracted with DoorDash to work as a delivery driver in 2019, according to the complaint. On Nov. 6, 2019, he was shot and “severely” injured while making an assigned delivery.
DoorDash’s platform selected his delivery location without safety screening, background checks, or neighborhood risk assessments, he claims.
“Defendant had full technological capacity to implement risk analysis, location vetting, and customer screening but chose not to exercise reasonable safety measures,” the plaintiff wrote in his lawsuit.
Linnankivi contends DoorDash has falsely marketed to the public and its drivers that it is committed to the safety and protection of its workers.
“These public statements were materially misleading as Defendant simultaneously failed to implement even basic safety protocols, exposing Plaintiff to foreseeable dangers,” the complaint states. “As a direct result of Defendant’s failures, Plaintiff sustained catastrophic permanent injuries, loss of earning capacity, mental anguish, medical complications, and financial ruin.”
According to the seven-page filing, Linnankivi received Temporary Total Disability, or TTD, payments for two years after his injury.
However, unknown to him, DoorDash structured the insurance policy to condition long-term benefits on eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance, or SSDI.
Linnankivi, as a recent immigrant to the U.S., said he lacked sufficient work credits to qualify for SSDI.
He learned in November 2021 that long-term benefits would be denied because of his SSDI ineligibility.
“At no time prior to or during his contract did Defendant disclose or explain that SSDI eligibility was a mandatory condition to continue benefits after the TTD period,” his complaint states.
Linnankivi contends DoorDash’s insurance scheme “disproportionately harmed” immigrant drivers unfamiliar with U.S. disability systems.
“Defendant owed Plaintiff both a contractual and independent legal duty to disclose material facts affecting financial benefits following workplace injuries,” he wrote in the complaint.
In addition, Linnankivi argues DoorDash refuses to provide drivers with real-time crime data, neighborhood alerts, or “mechanisms to decline potentially dangerous orders without penalty.”
“Only after public criticism did Defendant introduce limited ‘danger reporting’ features on its platform, which did not exist at the time of Plaintiff’s injury,” the complaint states.
“Defendant’s acts constitute gross negligence, reckless endangerment, and corporate indifference toward its workers.”
Linnankivi seeks economic damages, punitive damages, damages for emotional distress and mental anguish, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
The plaintiff is representing himself in the lawsuit.
