Disciplined in Sophisticated Defense and Insurance Litigation

July 19, 2019 | Blog Post| PHENOMENON OR PANDEMIC: PONDERING THE POTENTIAL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE E-SCOOTER CRAZE

On July 12, 2019, YouTube celebrity Emily Hartridge died from injuries she sustained in a collision between an electric scooter (“e-scooter”) she was riding and a truck in London, England.[i] This high profile incident helps bring to light the legal phenomenon being created by the e-scooter rental industry. More and more, e-scooters are popping up in cities across the country, and around the world.

Many U.S. cities have begun allowing e-scooter vendors to supply e-scooters as local transportation options. In Florida, the City of Fort Lauderdale was the State’s e-scooter program pioneer, which debuted its Dockless Mobility Permit Program on November 1, 2018.[ii] Miami[iii] and Tampa[iv] recently adopted pilot programs allowing the use of e-scooters in various parts of the city where pedestrian traffic is heavy.

Renting an e-scooter is fairly simple, and virtually anyone can do it. All someone needs to do is download the e-scooter vendor’s app to a smart phone, enter a credit card for payment, and scan the bar code located on the e-scooter to unlock it. The rental cost is generally $1 plus 15 cents per minute.

These e-scooters are small enough and versatile enough to be driven on sidewalks and streets, through both pedestrian and automobile traffic. Most cities allow the speed of these publicly available e-scooters to reach 10-15 mph; although reported glitches have allowed some e-scooters to exceed 20 mph.[v] People operate these e-scooters in busy urban centers, which inevitably lead to accidents that cause injury to persons and property, ranging from the minor to the devastating, such as was the case with Ms. Hartridge.

As of June 2019, there were reportedly over 1,500 injuries and at least eight known deaths in the U.S. linked to e-scooter accidents.[vi] It is logical that e-scooter operators would generally be liable for injuries and damage caused by any negligence they commit in collision related accidents. Additionally, ordinary product liability laws would likely govern if injury or damage is caused by a defect in the e-scooter. But injuries and liability issues related to e-scooters are not necessarily limited to such incidents. There is a seemingly wide variety of legal questions that can, and likely will, be raised by this proliferation of e-scooters.

Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine “imposes strict liability on the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another.”[vii] Like an ordinary car, an “electric scooter” is considered a motor vehicle under Florida law.[viii] Does this translate to liability of an e-scooter vendor for the negligence of e-scooter operators? If so, what is the effect of the Graves Amendment, which generally bars a State or political subdivision from holding the owner of a motor vehicle vicariously liable if the owner is “engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles”?[ix] Are the e-scooter vendors subject to any State financial responsibility laws imposed upon a motor vehicle owner?

Unlike renting a car, one does not necessarily need to be of legal driving age to access and operate these e-scooters. What happens when the operator is a minor? When the operator has insufficient insurance, or no insurance at all? When the operator commits a hit and run where the e-scooter vendor can be identified, but not the operator? How will the injured parties be protected in such instances?

In addition to the liability issues arising from collisions while being operated, unsuspecting third parties may also be trapped in the e-scooter web. Once e-scooter users reach their destinations, they generally just leave them where they stop. E-scooters are often carelessly discarded by their operators at random places, both public and private, creating trip hazards. What is the municipal liability where e-scooters are allowed to be used on public sidewalks and streets? What is the liability of private property owners on whose property these e-scooters are left? Do municipalities and property owners owe a duty to discover e-scooters left on or near their property and ensure that the hazards they pose are eliminated? Are the e-scooter vendors liable to property owners who suffer injuries or damages trying to remove discarded e-scooters from their property? Do the property owners have a right to impound e-scooters left on their property, or on adjacent public property?

We have barely scratched the surface on the legal issues surrounding ride share programs such as Uber and Lyft. There is very little case law on ride share liability and the relationship and responsibilities of the involved parties. Many states have even enacted ride share legislation (e.g Transportation Network Company (TNC) Acts) in an effort to address the issues. Can we expect to see similar legislation for the e-scooter industry?

The number of e-scooters on public sidewalks and streets will likely continue to grow, as e-scooter popularity seems to be in full swing, and because e-scooter vendors appear to be eager to accommodate the demand. With this growth, how will the courts and legislatures address the corresponding legal issues?

 

A profile photo of William Linero Jr.William Linero Jr. | PARTNER

Casualty Defense Litigation

(813) 281-1900 | TAMPA

October 29, 2019 Blog PostSeeing May Soon be Believing: The Possible Expansion of Summary Judgment in Florida with Respect to Dash Camera Footage

Many transportation companies use dash cameras for purposes of defending against actions for liability.  However, recently in Lopez v. Wilsonart, LLC, 275 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)...

Read More »
May 30, 2019 Blog PostShould Amazon be Liable for Products Sold in its Marketplace?

Amazon, the largest e-commerce website in the world and a member of the “Big Four” has repeatedly, and successfully, argued that the company is not liable for harm caused by the defective products that are sold by third parties on its website. Most recently, Amazon avoided potential liability arising from a house fire caused by a defective headlamp...

Read More »
May 29, 2019 Blog PostThe Final Word? The Florida Supreme Court Adopts the Daubert Standard for Evidence

Prior to 1993, federal and state courts used the standard enunciated in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), to determine whether scientific evidence should be admitted at a trial.  The Frye standard requires the offeror of the evidence to establish that the expert opinion is based on principles and testing procedures that are generally accepted by the scientific community.  The standard only applies to new and novel scientific evidence.

Read More »
April 15, 2019 Blog PostUnsuccessfully Using Requests for Admissions as a Sword for Attorney's Fees

As a defense attorney practicing in the areas of auto accidents, premises liability, and products liability cases, I observe plaintiff’s counsel serving my clients with requests for admission, asking for improbable admissions.  The requests often ask my clients to admit that they were negligent in causing the accident, failed to provide sufficient security or training to prevent a criminal act against a customer or tenant, failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent a slip and fall or make a product safe, and that such negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s claimed damages. 

Read More »
February 27, 2017 Blog PostNEW MEDICARE CONDITIONAL PAYMENT CASE: FEDERAL COURT REQUIRES CMS TO PERFORM SURGERY ON ITS PRIMARY PLAN REIMBUSEMENT DEMANDS

Doctors often treat Medicare beneficiaries for accident related injuries (for which a “primary” auto or workers’ compensation carrier must reimburse Medicare) and unrelated maladies at the same visit. Billing for the visit cites multiple diagnosis codes, but a single charge for treatment of both an accident related back injury and unrelated hypertension, or gout for example.

Read More »
December 06, 2016 Blog PostTRIAL COURT SLIPS AND FALLS IN GRANTING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

On October 21, 2016, Florida’s Second DCA issued a decision in a slip-and-fall case against Wal-Mart that found the trial court erred when it set aside the jury verdict and granted Plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the basis that Wal-Mart’s failure to follow its own safety policy clearly demonstrated a finding of negligence.

Read More »
February 16, 2016 Blog PostDrone Wars: Will The Litigation Awaken?

The use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) has drastically increased over the last few years, and this trend has no sign of abating any time soon. According to the Washington Post, approximately 700,000 recreational drone purchases were expected to be made in 2015, a 63% increase from 2014.

Read More »
November 02, 2015 Blog PostWHAT THE SECOND DISTRICT GIVETH, THE SUPREME COURT TAKETH AWAY

On October 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed a Second District decision that ruled evidence of Medicare benefits was admissible under an exception to the collateral source rule.

Read More »
October 22, 2015 Blog PostFlorida's 4th DCA Enforces Limit on Expert Discovery

Inconsistencies between the defense expert’s interrogatory answers and his deposition testimony regarding the percentage of income the doctor derived from working as an expert witness, and the number of times he testified for plaintiffs versus defendants.

Read More »
June 04, 2015 Blog PostSouthern District of Florida Awards Duplicate Medicare Lien Payment

The federal order was issued despite the fact that Plaintiff previously obtained a reduction of Humana’s lien amount in the state court declaratory action based on the amount of her recovery and procurement costs, which was appealed by Humana.  That appeal remains pending.

Read More »
July 24, 2014 Blog PostSports Laws Focusing More and More on Youth Sports

Youth sports have become a year-round, multi-million dollar industry. From travel teams, to club ball, to off-season workouts, the concept of youth sports has changed dramatically from a fun day at the park to a highly competitive atmosphere, where specialization and focus on one particular sport begins at an earlier and earlier age. As a result of the increase in the popularity and appetite for competition among children, the law has also begun to change.

Read More »