Share and Follow
Inset: Philip Kim (Kherkher Garcia, LLP). Background: The area in Houston, Texas, where Lyft driver Philip Kim was shot to death after picking up a rider who allegedly used a fake identity to lure him there (KPRC/YouTube).
In a tragic incident, a 27-year-old Lyft driver from Texas fell victim to a heinous crime after being lured by a passenger using a false identity. The driver, Philip Kim, was shot and abandoned on the roadside, while the attacker fled with his vehicle. This devastating event has now prompted Kim’s family to file a lawsuit against Lyft, accusing the company of negligence and failing to protect its drivers despite being aware of potential threats in the area.
The lawsuit claims, “Philip paid the price of Lyft’s greed and negligence.” It argues that Lyft had prior knowledge of violent incidents targeting rideshare drivers in the vicinity but still sent Kim into harm’s way without warning him. The family points out that similar attacks had taken place just days before Kim’s murder on February 26, 2025, in Harris County.
According to the legal complaint submitted on Wednesday, the area where Kim was dispatched had already witnessed two other carjackings involving rideshare drivers, both occurring at gunpoint. These alarming incidents were reported less than a week before Kim became the latest victim of such violence.
The complaint emphasizes the proximity of these previous crimes to where Kim was sent, stating, “These incidents happened a short distance from the same location Lyft dispatched Philip to.” The lawsuit further accuses Lyft of ignoring the evident risks. “Lyft was on notice that at least two incidents of physical assaults and carjackings were reported in the immediate vicinity in the recent past from the date of the incident. Despite this knowledge, Lyft dispatched Philip to the location where he was subsequently robbed at gunpoint, shot, and murdered,” it asserts.
In their allegations, Kim’s family holds Lyft responsible for his untimely death, describing the company’s decision to send him there as “an affirmative action which caused plaintiff’s assault and death.” They argue that Lyft had a duty to exercise reasonable care towards its drivers, passengers, and the public, a duty they believe was neglected in this case.
Court records show that Anthony Perkins, 18, is charged with capital murder for the Kim slaying and the two other incidents cited in the Kim complaint. Prosecutors say he shot and killed Kim before taking off in his car and crashing it.
“This murder was made even more senseless by the fact that [Kim’s] vehicle was recovered a mere eight blocks away, crashed into a ditch,” the complaint against Lyft says.
Police told the Kim family that two other assailants, who are believed to be minors, allegedly took part in the carjacking. “One is believed to have been apprehended and the other remains at large,” according to a statement from the family’s legal team.
Perkins, who is also named as a defendant in the Lyft complaint, is charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon for allegedly targeting a Lyft driver on Feb. 20, 2025, just six days before Kim was killed.
A probable cause affidavit for that incident says the victim was dispatched to an address in the 3000 block of Faulkner Street, roughly a half mile away from where Kim was dispatched, after receiving a trip “for a female passenger” who turned out to be Perkins and another male.
“[The victim] asked the males if they were waiting on Lyft, and they replied yes,” the affidavit says. “Shortly after [the victim] began driving, defendant Perkins and [the other suspect] pulled out guns and pointed them at [the victim’s] head. [The victim] described the guns as assault rifles with no stock.”
The affidavit says Perkins used his own mother’s name, phone number and Lyft account to order the trip that day. It’s unclear whether he allegedly did the same in the Kim slaying.
Kim’s father, Mark Kim, spoke to local NBC affiliate KPRC in March 2025 about his son’s murder and recounted how he was checking the location of an air tag on Kim’s keychain that night after he failed to pick up his phone.
“The car was moving to another spot after one hour later, no calls moving,” Kim said. “His phone was dead. I thought something was strange. I checked the Google Map; the car parking location was the Houston [Police] Department parking lot, and I thought there was something wrong. I asked the policeman why my car is here. Where is my son? What happened? And the policeman gave me the phone number to the Houston Homicide Department office.”
Mark Kim told KPRC that if he could speak to Perkins, he’d ask him “why” he did what he did to someone who was “just trying to get money” by working for Lyft.
“He didn’t do anything wrong,” Mark Kim said. “I don’t know why innocent people are being picked on.”
Reached for comment Thursday by Law&Crime on the Kim family lawsuit, Lyft said it could not speak on ongoing litigation.
“This case is not just about one horrific crime; it is about a preventable tragedy,” said attorney Sadi R. Antonmattei-Goitia in a statement. “Lyft has long known that its platform can be exploited by individuals using fake identities, yet it failed to implement basic safeguards that could have protected drivers like Philip. This lawsuit is about accountability and forcing meaningful change so no other family endures this kind of loss.”