E-scooters are often a great way to get around in compact urban areas like New York. Many destinations are slightly outside walking distance, but not far enough to drive and park. Lots of people apparently agree with this assessment. The number of e-scooter trips nearly doubled between 2019 and 2020.
These vehicles are popular, and they are dangerous. Usually, the only operator qualification is a valid credit card. The company will rent to anyone, regardless of the driver's experience level. As a result, wrecks are common. Most of these crashes are very minor. But the additional wear and tear on the scooter adds up.
Moreover, an e-scooter is not quite a bicycle and not quite a motorcycle. They operate like bicycles, but are almost as fast as motorcycles. Additionally, e-scooters stay outside almost constantly. So, they are almost always exposed to the elements. Furthermore, the companies that own these vehicles hardly ever inspect them.
Common e-scooter accidents include the aforementioned crashes and pedestrian knockdowns. If you or a loved one was hurt in such an incident, a New York personal injury attorney may be able to obtain substantial compensation in court. Even a relatively minor fall or other incident could trigger tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills, lost wages, and other economic losses. These victims are also entitled to compensation for their noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering.
Head injuries are among the most common injuries in these situations. Pretty much no e-scooter riders wear helmets. Protective headgear doesn't eliminate head injury risk in an accident. But those thin bicycle helmets reduce the risk by about 50 percent.
Usually, these accidents only cause mild Traumatic Brain Injuries (mTBIs, or concussions). Symptoms include brief disorientation and headaches. Nevertheless, these injuries cause permanent brain damage. After brain cells die, they never regenerate.
Furthermore, mTBIs are very serious if the victim has a history of head injuries. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a well-documented condition commonly associated with football players and other athletes in contact sports. When it comes to concussions, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. CTE symptoms include suicidal thoughts, dementia-like cognitive impairment, and personality changes.
Doctors don't know the threshold number of CTE concussions. It could be two or twenty. That's because CTE is usually impossible to diagnose. Only a brain autopsy conclusively establishes the presence of this disease.
In terms of damage claims, previous concussions are a pre-exsisting condition. Therefore, if an e-scooter accident causes CTE, full compensation is available. Insurance companies cannot use a victim's vulnerabilities, like previous and unrelated head injuries, as an excuse to reduce or deny compensation.
Pedestrians are also vulnerable to injuries, including concussions and CTE. Usually, e-scooter riders are legally responsible for pedestrian injuries. Two negligence theories are generally available in these cases.
Negligence per se is a violation of a safety law. Various laws apply to e-scooter operation. No riding on the sidewalk is the most commonly-violated one. Particularly when pedestrians walk around corners, it's almost impossible for them to avoid an oncoming e-scooter. Furthermore, these vehicles are so quiet that, if one approaches a pedestrian from behind, the victim will probably have no idea it's coming until it's too late.
In New York, tortfeasors (negligent operators) could be liable for damages as a matter of law if they violate safety laws and these violations substantially cause injury.
This rule usually applies only if an emergency responder issues a citation. That usually doesn't happen in these situations. Frequently, police officers see vehicle collisions as civil matters. They don't want to write citations and get sucked into the vortex.
So, many e-scooter accident claims hinge on the ordinary negligence rule. This doctrine is widely available, but it's also easier for insurance companies to defend.
Basically, negligence is a lack of care. Most e-scooter operators have a duty of reasonable care. If the operator was a commercial operator, like a Door Dash delivery person, a higher duty of care could apply in some situations. The duty of care requires operators to, in the words of my grandfather, look out for th' other fella. Failure to maintain a proper lookout clearly violates the duty of care.
Comparative fault is probably the most common negligence defense. Specifically, pedestrian accidents often feature the distracted walking defense. Essentially, distracted walking is a failure to mind your surroundings. Insurance company lawyers argue that the pedestrian victim didn't watch where s/he was going.
Frequently, this defense involves a smartphone or other device. If that's the case, the insurance company must convince a judge that the victim was so immersed in the device that s/he ignored everything else. Device use logs could prove this point in court.
If the judge allows the defense, jurors must apportion fault on a percentage basis. New York is a pure comparative fault state. Even if a tortfeasor was only 1 percent responsible for the wreck, s/he is responsible for a proportionate share of damages.
As mentioned, e-scooters stay outside constantly. These machines can only take so much wear and tear. As a result, hazards like poor steering and non-working accelerators are common. These hazards are especially dangerous if, as is usually the case, the operator has little or no experience.
If a hazard causes a rider to fall off the e-scooter or have another accident, the owner is usually responsible for damages. Responsibility usually attaches if the owner knew, or should have known, about the injury-causing hazard. A 1911 case, Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Company, illustrates the constructive knowledge (should have known) rule.
Ms. Anjou slipped on a banana peel which, according to witnesses, was black and gritty, as though it had been "tramped over a good deal." The defendant denied responsibility because it didn't know about the banana peel.
The court ruled that the defendant should have known about the wayward peel. Since it was black and gritty, it had probably been walked on a lot. Therefore, an employee should have seen it and should have picked it up.
The constructive knowledge rule also speaks to an owner's duty to inspect property, including rented e-scooters. Boston Elevated Railway Company had a duty to inspect the floor, and e-scooter companies have a duty to inspect their bikes. These inspections should also include some basic diagnostic tests. Failure to inspect could be an independent basis for a negligence claim.
Injury victims are usually entitled to significant compensation. For a free consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer in New York, contact the Pianko Law Group, PLLC. We do not charge upfront legal fees in these matters.