The article lists a few reasons why. There were some ("some" meaning "thousands of pages", per the article) documents from the company

>....including some showing that Uber had flagged her ride as a higher risk for a serious safety incident moments before she was picked up. Uber never warned her, with an executive testifying that it would have been “impractical” to do so.

as well as some

>...suggesting that Uber resisted introducing safety features such as in-car cameras because it believed these measures would slow corporate growth.

I would probably have not been included on the jury because I think uber is run by some of the biggest scumbags in the corporate world but if the article is to be believed it's not an unreasonable verdict unless you think no company should be liable for anything that results from their choices and actions.