E-Scooter Injuries in California: The User Agreement Problem

You unlocked a scooter on a sidewalk in Santa Monica or downtown Oakland by scanning a code and tapping through two screens. Somewhere in those screens was a document longer than this article, and it contained an arbitration clause, a class action waiver, and a release of liability for injuries. You did not read it. Almost nobody does.

Then a car turned across your path, or a wheel dropped into a pavement gap the city has known about for two years, and you woke up in an emergency department. Now the question is whether that document you never read has any effect on your right to be compensated. The honest answer is that it matters much less than people fear, and that the claim you actually need is often against a driver who was never a party to it.

Quick answer: A rental scooter user agreement can require arbitration and can waive ordinary negligence claims against the scooter company, but it cannot do more than that. Under Civil Code section 1668, a contract cannot exempt anyone from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury, or violation of law, and California courts have consistently held that a release does not cover gross negligence. More importantly, the agreement is between you and the scooter company. It generally has no effect on your claim against the driver who hit you. A city is different: if the agreement names the city as a released party, the city may be able to enforce the release as a third-party beneficiary under Civil Code section 1559, although that release still cannot cover gross negligence. The claim against the driver is often the stronger one.

Who You May Have a Claim Against

Before anything else, separate the defendants. A scooter injury commonly involves three completely different legal tracks with three different sets of rules and deadlines.

• The driver who hit you. What you must show: Ordinary negligence in operating the vehicle. Deadline and practical limits: Two years. Auto liability policy applies, and your own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage may also apply.
• A public entity for a road or sidewalk defect. What you must show: A dangerous condition of public property under Government Code section 835, plus notice of the condition. Deadline and practical limits: Written government claim within six months under Government Code section 911.2. Immunities apply, the notice element is contested, and if the user agreement names the city as a released party, the city may raise the release as a defense.
• The scooter company for a mechanical failure. What you must show: Defective brakes, steering, or throttle, or negligent maintenance. Deadline and practical limits: Usually arbitration under the user agreement. Ordinary negligence may be waived, gross negligence may not be.
• A property owner where you fell. What you must show: An unsafe condition on private property the owner knew of or should have found. Deadline and practical limits: Two years. Premises liability rules apply rather than the user agreement.
• Your own insurers. What you must show: Coverage under health, MedPay, or UM and UIM provisions. Deadline and practical limits: Policy notice deadlines, often much shorter than two years.

What You Actually Agreed To

Rental scooter agreements are broadly similar. They typically include an assumption of risk, a release of the company from liability for injuries arising from use of the scooter, an agreement to arbitrate disputes individually, a promise to obey traffic law and wear a helmet, and a representation that you are licensed and of age.

Two of those provisions do real work. The arbitration clause changes the forum, meaning a private arbitrator decides the dispute rather than a jury. The release attempts to eliminate the claim itself.

What people miss is the scope. Every one of those terms is a contract between you and the rental company. A driver who ran a red light is a stranger to that contract and gets no benefit from it. Some agreements, though, list cities and other public agencies among the parties released. Under Civil Code section 1559, a party the contract was expressly made to benefit may be able to enforce it, so it is worth reading the release language before assuming a claim against the city is untouched.

What a Liability Waiver Cannot Do in California

California enforces recreational liability waivers routinely, and a court will likely enforce one against an ordinary negligence claim. The limits are real, though, and they are set by statute and case law.

Civil Code section 1668 provides that contracts exempting anyone from responsibility for their own fraud, willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law. California courts have long read that section, together with public policy, to mean that a release cannot excuse gross negligence, which is a want of even scant care or an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of conduct.

The public interest limitation

In Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, the California Supreme Court set out the factors that determine whether an exculpatory agreement affects the public interest and is therefore void. Those factors include whether the business is of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation, whether it performs a service of practical necessity, whether it holds itself out as serving all comers, and whether the party seeking the release has decisive bargaining advantage in a standardized adhesion contract with no option to pay for protection.

Shared micromobility sits in an unusual position under that framework: it is a heavily permitted service offered to the public on standardized terms, which is why the analysis is worth making rather than assuming.

Arbitration Changes the Forum, Not the Merits

An enforceable arbitration clause means your claim against the scooter company is heard privately, usually without a jury and with limited appeal rights. It does not mean you have no claim, and it does not reduce the compensation the arbitrator can award.

These clauses are also subject to ordinary contract defenses. A clause can be attacked as unconscionable, and courts examine both how it was presented and how one sided its terms are. Whether the terms were reasonably conspicuous during a fifteen second sign up matters to that analysis.

None of this affects the driver, whose claim proceeds in court in the ordinary way. Whether a public entity can rely on the agreement depends on how the agreement is worded.

The Claim Against the Driver Is Usually the Real Case

Most serious scooter injuries involve a motor vehicle. A left turn across a bike lane, a right hook at an intersection, a door opened into the travel lane, a driver pulling out of a garage without stopping at the sidewalk.

Those are ordinary negligence claims backed by an auto liability policy, and they behave much like a bicycle collision claim. The scooter company's paperwork is irrelevant to them.

If the driver fled or carried no insurance, your own uninsured motorist coverage may apply even though you were not in a car at the time, because that coverage generally follows the insured person. Check your policy, and notify your carrier in writing early.

Dangerous Roads and the Six Month Government Claim

Scooters have small wheels, and pavement defects that a car rolls over without notice will stop one instantly. Deep potholes, raised utility covers, unmarked pavement lips, and open trench edges cause a large share of single rider falls.

Government Code section 835 allows a claim against a public entity when its property was in a dangerous condition at the time of injury, the condition caused the injury, the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred, and either an employee's negligent act created the condition or the entity had actual or constructive notice of it long enough to have taken protective measures.

The deadline is the problem. Government Code section 911.2 requires a written claim for personal injury to be presented to the entity within six months of the injury. Miss it and you are ordinarily out, subject to a limited late claim application. This is the single most common way a legitimate scooter case dies, and it dies quietly, months before anyone thinks about a lawsuit. Our explanation of California filing deadlines sets out how much shorter the government track is.

Helmets, Sidewalks, and What the Rules Do to Your Case

Vehicle Code section 21235 sets the operating rules for motorized scooters. Among them: a rider under 18 must wear a helmet, the rider must hold a driver's license or instruction permit, the scooter may not carry a passenger, and it may not be ridden on a sidewalk except to enter or leave adjacent property.

Vehicle Code section 21230 provides that a motorized scooter may be operated on a bicycle path, trail, or bikeway, and allows local authorities to prohibit that use by ordinance. Rules vary between cities, which is why a legal ride in one jurisdiction may not be legal a mile away.

For adult riders, California does not require a helmet on a motorized scooter. Riding without one is not by itself negligence, though insurers argue it constantly, and the analysis parallels the one in motorcycle helmet disputes. Where a rule violation does matter is comparative fault: riding on a sidewalk or carrying a passenger can reduce recovery by a percentage, but under California's pure comparative fault system it does not eliminate the claim.

When You Probably Do Not Need a Lawyer

If you tipped over at low speed, scraped a knee and an elbow, walked away, and had no imaging and no follow up care, there is not much for a lawyer to do. Small soft tissue claims with no treatment history and no lost income are usually resolved faster and with less friction on your own, and a contingency fee on a small settlement leaves you worse off than handling it yourself.

The line moves when there is a fracture, a head injury, dental damage, surgery, or a real gap in work. It also moves when a public entity is involved, because of the six month clock, or when the scooter behaved abnormally before the fall.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the waiver I clicked through end my case?

Not on its own. It mainly affects claims against the scooter company, and even there it cannot excuse gross negligence, or fraud, willful injury, or a violation of law under Civil Code section 1668. It does not affect your claim against the driver. If the agreement names a city as a released party, the city may try to enforce it against an ordinary negligence claim, so the exact wording matters.

Do I have to arbitrate against the driver who hit me?

No. Arbitration clauses bind the parties to the contract. A driver who hit you never agreed to anything with you, so that claim proceeds in court.

I was not wearing a helmet. Does that hurt my claim?

For an adult on a motorized scooter, there is no helmet requirement, and it does not defeat the claim. Insurers raise it anyway, and it can be argued as comparative fault for a head injury, which is a percentage argument rather than a bar.

I hit a pothole. How long do I have to make a claim against the city?

Six months from the injury to present a written claim under Government Code section 911.2. That is the deadline that ends most of these cases, and it runs while you are still in treatment.

What if the brakes failed?

That shifts the focus to the company's maintenance and inspection records, and to whether the failure was reported before your ride. Preserve the scooter identification number and your trip record from the app immediately, because both are needed to pull the maintenance history.

Can I recover if I was riding on the sidewalk?

Usually yes, at a reduced amount. Vehicle Code section 21235 prohibits sidewalk riding, and a violation supports a comparative fault argument, but California reduces recovery by your percentage of fault rather than eliminating it.

Hurt on a Rental Scooter? Geller Legal Can Help.

These cases fail for two reasons, and neither is the waiver. The rider assumes the agreement ended everything and never looks at the driver's policy, or the six month government claim deadline passes while they are still in physical therapy. By the time anyone asks the right question, the pavement has been repaired and the only proof of the defect is a photograph nobody took.

Geller Legal | Personal Injury Attorneys handles these cases with the detail they demand. We separate the claims the user agreement touches from the ones it does not, file government claims well inside the six month window, and preserve app trip data, scooter maintenance records, and roadway evidence before any of it is gone.

We serve injured clients throughout California, with offices in Walnut Creek, Oakland, and Los Angeles. If you were injured on a shared scooter and someone has told you that the terms you accepted end the matter, that is worth a second opinion before you accept it.

Contact Geller Legal for a free, confidential consultation with Attorney Michael Geller.