New Ruling Could Allow People to Sue for Falls Caused by E-Scooters Blocking Sidewalks
If you live in a major city in the U.S., chances are you’ve had to walk around an e-scooter (or two) on the sidewalk. Although most people who ride e-scooters avoid leaving them in areas with a lot of pedestrian traffic, others don’t. You may see them as an annoying at most, but for the elderly, the disabled and those pushing a baby stroller, trying to get around the offending e-scooter could cause a serious trip and fall injury. Even someone not in one of these groups could suffer major injuries in these circumstances.
Up until recently, those injured in falls near discarded d e-scooters had little to no legal recourse. However, a recent court ruling in California could change all that. California’s Second Appellate District panel has reinstated a woman’s suit against Bird Rides Inc. for injuries she sustained in 2019 after tripping over an e-scooter that was partially hidden by a trash can. She stated the company must relocate the e-scooters if they pose a danger to the public.
The suit alleges that Bird’s e-scooters, which are typically left by users on sidewalks, create tripping hazards and that the company failed to properly educate its users to park the e-scooters safely. The panel found that Bird can be sued under California’s public nuisance law because the plaintiff had properly alleged that the company was violating the terms of its permit with the city of Los Angeles. That permit requires it to ensure that the scooters are not blocking pedestrian walkways and that it “remedy inoperable or improperly parked vehicles within two hours” between “the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily,” among other requirements.
Bird counterargued that it couldn’t be held liable for the alleged negligence of the unknown third party who parked the e-scooter next to the trash can, saying such an action puts the blame on the third party, whereas the plaintiff alleges that Bird’s mismanagement of its e-scooters contributed to her injuries. However, the appeals court said the supposed negligence of third parties is irrelevant at this stage of the case because the plaintiff alleges that Bird’s actions deploying dockless scooters on public streets without ensuring they don’t become unreasonable hazards to pedestrians, constituted a breach of its duty of care regarding the management of its property.
The ruling could have significant implications for e-scooter companies, as it may require them to be more diligent in ensuring their vehicles are parked safely to avoid liability for any accidents caused by their misuse. Attorney J.J. Dominguez weighed in on this ruling. “E-scooter companies haven’t had to deal with safety issues surrounding the improper return of their products. This ruling changes that. Anyone who has suffered a serious injury due to an improperly placed e-scooter should contact a slip and fall personal injury attorney immediately to see what their options are for recovering damages for losses suffered.”
The dissenting justice, Luis Lavin, said he would dismiss the claims against Bird because it would incorrectly require the company “retrieve scooters that had been improperly parked” for just minutes. “If dock-less bicycle and scooter companies could be held liable for failing to immediately retrieve illegally parked bicycles and scooters, most of them, to avoid liability, would simply go out of business.”
This ruling could set a precedent for e-scooter and other micro-transportation companies and the handling of their vehicles. However, Bird is considering an appeal to the California Supreme Court, and the dissenting justice raised concerns that the ruling would impose a strict liability basis on e-scooter companies, potentially driving them out of business. Meanwhile, questions about public safety continue to raise concerns, and rightly so. Hopefully, a compromise can be met between those who use these services and vulnerable pedestrians who are negatively impacted by them.