The judge “concluding the company is legally responsible for the conduct of its driver”.

I’m not a layer, but doesn’t that open up a precedent where others could be more willing sue Uber now for damages caused by their driver?

Good. Companies shouldn't be able to get out of having good public behavior just by not having employees

Yes, and more: for example, Amazon and FedEx are now at risk of being held legally responsible for egregious harms committed by Amazon (TBA) and FedEx Ground (RPS) delivery drivers, both of which are operated through subcontracting to (until now) insulate the brand from the annoying complications of workers and their actions. Their insistence of forcibly branding the contractors with their logo disguises that this has been happening for decades now from the public, but also opened a theoretical legal vulnerability — now proven by a judge: mandatory use of a brand by subcontractors can, by a reasonable interpretation, be expected to mandate liability resulting from its use.

The litmus test one can apply to test any given situation is, in my view, threefold:

1. Is the contractor authorized (or compelled) to display another’s brand more prominently than their own in some (or all) customer-facing circumstances?

(Every delivery truck operated by a third party in these manners typically has, somewhere on it, the actual operating business name that owns the physical truck. Is it in smaller fine print rather than being Most Prominent? These days, almost universally.)

2. Would a reasonable person consider the contractor’s work to have been presented as the brand’s work, rather than as the contracted business’s work?

(Raise your hand if you can name from memory the full name of an Uber driver that you have no personal connection to, or of an Amazon or FedEx Ground contracted last-mile business, that you have no personal or professional connection to other than their last-mile delivery of you and/or your possessions.)

3. Was the harm done sufficiently egregious that the brand’s licensor should be held jointly (or singly) liable for actions that occurred under their brand’s name?

(‘I didn’t get breadsticks with my meal’ does not expose Olive Garden’s brand owner to liability; one sues the franchisee directly and receives an outcome as usual. ‘I was teleported into a nether dimension through the kitchen doorway by the waiter and Olive Garden Corporate only offered me a free meal coupon in compensation’ would likely expose Olive Garden’s brand owner to liability: the harm is egregious enough that the brand owner is likely to be forced to pay out some of the revenues from licensing the brand as recompense.)

Notably, this is where classical restaurant franchises already provide prior art: McDonalds could not insulate itself from legal liability by claiming that the Hot Coffee location was operated by a contractor (which I can reasonably assume they tried and failed to claim, but have not yet researched). Sufficiently egregious harm was committed that piercing the contracting veil was clearly deemed appropriate. B2B/IC relationships are not a vibranium shield against liability. One can franchise every driver for each trip individually like Uber if it makes the business feel safer, but with brand licensees comes brand liabilities.

(Ironically: I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)