| Hacala v. Bird Rides, Inc. (2023)
An electric motorized scooter rental business utilizes a “dock-less” system, allowing customers to pick up and leave scooters at any public location. While walking on a crowded sidewalk, plaintiff tripped on the back wheel of a scooter. Plaintiff, her daughter, and her husband sued the scooter company for negligence. The trial court found the scooter company owed no duty of care and sustained defendants’ demurrer. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that the scooter company owed plaintiffs a duty (1) to remove a scooter located in a place where it could cause harm, (2) not to entrust its scooters to individuals who the scooter company “knows or should know are likely to leave scooters in hazardous locations where they will pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others,” and (3) to ensure its scooters are conspicuous so they will not become unreasonable tripping hazards on public sidewalks.
The court also held that imposition of a duty was consistent with public policy because (1) the scooter company conceded foreseeability of harm, likely because the permit issued from the City of Los Angeles implicitly recognized the foreseeable harm that could result from an improperly parked scooter, (2) the permit reflected local authorities’ policy judgment that dock-less scooter companies should take responsibility for management of their property, (3) relevant laws warned against recognizing an exception for dock-less scooter companies, (4) the scooter company had insurance to cover costs of future harm, and (5) the scooter company would not face “extreme burdens” because it would only be obligated to use ordinary care to monitor and remove its property when it posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Dissent
A dissenting opinion explained that while the scooter company owes a general duty of care in the management of its property, this duty should not require the company to retrieve improperly parked scooters after only a few seconds as the majority suggests, because this would allow plaintiffs to recover based on strict liability. Instead, the dissent suggested a more specific standard of care framed in terms of the company’s permit, requiring the company to retrieve inoperable or improperly parked scooters within two hours on a daily basis between 7am and 10 pm. |
