Uber drivers in California will be classified as independent contractors, rather than employees, if a federal judge in San Francisco approves a huge legal settlement. But the ride-hailing company’s success at fending off employer status for labor purposes may not relieve it of responsibility should one of its drivers run over a pedestrian.

On the surface, the issues of driver classification and legal liability focus on the same question: whether Uber exercises enough control over the driver’s workday, in setting hours, fares, work rules and working conditions, as well as hiring and firing, that it should be considered the drivers’ boss and not just the provider of a computer program that helps them pick up passengers.

But California courts tend to look at that question differently when the person on the receiving end is an injured pedestrian, rather than a driver seeking the benefits of employee status, such as minimum wages and reimbursement of expenses, said Veena Dubal, an associate law professor at UC Hastings in San Francisco.

Although companies like Uber and their drivers are now required by law to carry accident insurance, state courts haven’t decided yet whether the companies are responsible for injuries caused by the drivers who generate their revenue. Still, Dubal said, California law, as interpreted by the courts in other cases, “leans in favor of finding that this person is an employee for purposes of negligence.”

Courts in other states have been more receptive to the companies’ arguments that they’re “just an app,” Dubal said, but “California case law is bad for the employer.” And she said the tentative settlement of Uber’s labor case should have no impact on lawsuits over accidents.

The settlement announced last week affects 385,000 past and present Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts who had sued for employee status. The settlement defines them as independent contractors, pays them up to $100 million, and imposes some restrictions on the company: It must set clear standards for dismissing drivers, allow them to appeal dismissals, and inform passengers that their fares don’t include tips.

The settlement, which awaits a June 2 court hearing for preliminary approval, doesn’t mention liability to third parties, such as accident victims.

Even if the drivers are considered contractors in their dealings with Uber, “the law doesn’t look at what you label them” when others are injured, said Christopher Dolan, a San Francisco lawyer involved in one such case last year.

Dolan’s firm represented the family of 6-year-old Sofia Liu, who was struck and killed by a sport utility vehicle belonging to an Uber driver in a crosswalk near Civic Center in San Francisco on New Year’s Eve 2013. The driver, Syed Muzaffar, 57, of Union City, was logged onto the UberX app at the time but hadn’t yet received any ride requests, according to the family’s lawsuit.

But the family’s lawyers contend Muzaffar may have been distracted by the phone app when he drove into the crosswalk and hit the girl. Uber denied liability, saying the driver was not yet providing services on its system at the time of the accident. But the company settled the suit in July for an undisclosed amount of money.

Prosecutors charged Muzaffar with vehicular manslaughter, but a jury deadlocked on his guilt this month. District Attorney George Gascón’s office says it will retry him.

Uber did not respond to a reporter’s questions about its liability for accidents. But attorney Laura Flynn, who represented Uber in another San Francisco case, said the company has consistently denied any legal responsibility for the drivers’ actions.

That case involved a March 2013 accident on Divisadero Street in which a driver tried to swerve around an Uber limousine at an intersection and slammed into a fire hydrant. The hydrant broke loose and struck a pedestrian, who suffered a broken leg and other injuries. The pedestrian blamed the Uber driver and sued the company in a case that was resolved recently in a confidential settlement, Flynn said.

The lawyer said Uber’s position, in accident cases as well as labor disputes, has been that “this person is using our (computer) application to communicate with potential clients” and as a nonemployee is solely responsible for any resulting injuries.

An opposing argument was voiced by Brian Kabateck, a Los Angeles lawyer and former president of Consumer Attorneys of California, which represents plaintiffs in injury suits.

“As soon as they turn the app on, they’re on the clock,” Kabateck said. “More cars (are) available for more customers. It’s just like a cab driver turning on the light. Without drivers available, Uber’s model goes nowhere.”

While the legal issue remains unresolved, the financial consequences were lessened by a state insurance law that took effect in July.

It requires ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft to provide $1 million in insurance coverage for injuries caused by a driver who has accepted a ride assignment. For the period when the driver is logged on but hasn’t yet gotten a call, the law requires $300,000 in coverage — the first $100,000 from either the company or the driver, and the rest from the company.

But Uber still wants its drivers to pick up the tab for any accidents they cause. Flynn said the company requires drivers to agree in advance that if they get sued by a passenger or a pedestrian, they will pay all costs of the case and defend Uber from any claims of liability.

State regulators and courts haven’t addressed the question of whether those agreements override Uber’s obligation under state law to provide up to $1.2 million in insurance coverage, Flynn said.

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @egelko