Lawsuit Targets Bird e-Scooter Over Claimed Brake Lockup
The attorney for a man seriously injured when his Bird e-scooter suddenly veered sharply said boilerplate language forfeiting right to litigate negligence claims in court is a major hurdle for unwary users who click on the app.
March 12, 2019 at 02:46 PM
4 minute read
So just how much risk are people assuming when they click that app to hop on a Bird or Lime e-scooter to zip to lunch or make that soon-to-start class?
A lawsuit filed last week in Atlanta may test the strength of the sweeping agate-type boilerplate waiver that scrolls across Bird's app sharply limiting any liability claims while agreeing that any dispute regarding the ubiquitous wheeled whizzers must be arbitrated in California.
That's a long trip for Simon Clopton, whose decision to hop aboard a Bird scooter in January ended abruptly when the front brake apparently locked up and threw him to the pavement on the Georgia Tech campus, shattering his leg and leaving him with more than $156,000 in medical bills.
“Fortunately, we have video from Georgia Tech that shows this thing riding straight down the street, everything's fine, and all of sudden the wheel just yanks to the left and sends him flying,” said attorney Louis Levenson, who sued Bird and the scooter's manufacturers Friday in Fulton County State Court.
“He struck the pavement in the bike lane and suffered compound fractures of the leg, and they had to put in screws, bolts and rods,” said Levenson, who filed the suit with Levenson & Associates colleague George Lott.
Clopton, 42, was about to start a new job but is instead sitting at home unable to put any weight on his leg, Levenson said. He was not wearing a helmet and suffered no head injuries, Levenson said.
The suit names Bird Rides Inc. and the scooters' manufacturers, Xiaomi USA and Segway Inc.
Scooters and their associated benefits, accidents, hassles and clutter are big news everywhere they operate. Atlanta lawmakers are considering regulations and have enlisted Grady Memorial Hospital to help track injuries. The Georgia General Assembly is pondering legislation to regulate where they can be parked and how fast they can travel—but holding scooter operators liable for injury may be the biggest bump of all.
User agreements for Bird and Lime both include binding arbitration clauses and class action waivers.
At least one lawsuit naming Bird is already pending in federal court: A putative class action asserting negligence, nuisance and other claims originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court was transferred to California's Central District in November, where the parties have agreed to stay pending settlement negotiations.
Levenson said the numbers of injuries and the dense user agreements closing off parties' ability to challenge the scooter companies' operations raise legitimate public policy concerns.
“One doesn't have to be terribly insightful to see all these scooters laying in the rain, in the mud,” Levenson said. “It's certainly not a shock that they're they're not serviced regularly, that they're recharged by volunteers.”
“I don't think people realize they're giving up all these rights when they click on these user agreements. I think this is going to be a seminal case here in Georgia, because these foreign companies are using an app that lets people click away their legal rights.”
Bird did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday, but it has said it offers free helmets to riders and has distributed thousands at no cost other than shipping; its website also includes a list of safety measures as to where to ride and park and instructs riders to avoid alcohol or one-handed driving.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Fierce Battle of Expert Witnesses' Expected in Cybersecurity Spat
Former UPS Workers Lodge Discrimination Suit for 'Systemic Racial Bias' in Workplace Culture
Norfolk Southern Replaces Fired CLO With Fast-Rising Internal Candidate
Trending Stories
- 1Business Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
- 2Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Ex-Miami Commissioner and Attorney
- 3Pennsylvania Modernizes Trust Administration With New Directed Trust Statute
- 4Farella Hires Former AUSA, Jan. 6 Prosecutor
- 5Dougherty Jury Returns $2M Verdict
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250