Defendant's Attorney: Kevin J. Kuhn, Anne M. Aderson, Steven R. Bonanno

Description:

Denver, Colorado personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a negligence theory.

¶ 1 Electric scooters have permeated cities throughout the United States in recent years, and Denver is no exception. And with new technologies often come new twists on established legal principles. This is such a case. Applying tort common law, we must determine whether the companies that rent out those scooters owe a duty to the public to protect against injuries caused by their customers.

¶ 2 Neutron Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Limebike and/or Lime (Lime), is one such company. It rents electric scooters to the public by placing them throughout Denver. After colliding with someone riding a Lime scooter in the wrong direction, Josanna Harrington sued Lime for negligence. The district court dismissed the claim, concluding that Lime did not owe Harrington a duty to protect her from harm caused by a third party's use of its scooter.


¶ 4 According to the allegations in the complaint, Harrington was riding her bicycle one evening in a bike lane in downtown Denver when she was hit and severely injured by an individual riding a Lime scooter in the opposite direction. The person riding the scooter - who Harrington alleges was intoxicated - fled the scene.

¶ 5 Harrington sued Lime for negligence.[1] She alleged that "[b]y placing scooters into the stream of commerce and littering them all over [Denver], [Lime] had a duty to ensure that . . . users operated [the scooters] in a safe manner to protect the public," including Harrington. She further alleged that Lime breached that duty by

• failing to check on the scooters or oversee users, instead "simply drop[ping] [scooters] off throughout the city" and relying on contractors to collect and recharge them;

• failing to properly inspect and maintain its scooters;

• failing to take measures to ensure that scooter users are not intoxicated, even though many people in Denver use Lime scooters to "go from bar to bar drinking";

• failing to restrict scooters from being driven the wrong way against traffic, despite their GPS capabilities and other restrictions on where the scooters can be driven;

• failing to provide adequate warnings and operational instructions to scooter users;

• failing to ensure that users know how to properly operate the scooters;

• failing to inform users of relevant rules and regulations;

• failing to ensure that the person who rents the scooter is the one actually operating it; and

• failing to properly regulate the speed of the scooters.

¶ 6 Lime moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It argued that (1) Harrington's claim was barred by the federal Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, which bars certain claims against the owner of a rented motor vehicle; and (2) Harrington did not allege facts plausibly showing that Lime owed her a duty of care. Harrington argued in response that (1) the Graves Amendment did not apply because she alleged that Lime had engaged in negligent conduct, and (2) Lime owed her (and the public at large) a duty of care based on its own operating procedures and Denver regulations.

¶ 7 The district court granted Lime's motion and dismissed Harrington's claim. It first concluded that the applicability of the Graves Amendment turned on whether Harrington had asserted an actionable negligence claim against Lime. It then concluded that she had not. Characterizing Harrington's claim as one for nonfeasance (failure to act) as opposed to misfeasance (active misconduct), the district court determined that Harrington had not alleged facts giving rise to a special relationship that would impose a duty on Lime to protect her from harm caused by a third party.

Harrington v. Neutron Holdings, Inc., 2024 COA 120, 23CA1663 (Colo. App. Nov 14, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: