Judge Flips Bird Personal Injury Suit by Cyclist Who Hit Scooter Left in Street
District Judge Michael Brown said there was no way Bird could have controlled whether someone threw one of its scooters into the street, where the cyclist hit it and wrecked.
May 06, 2020 at 06:08 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge in Atlanta tossed out a personal injury complaint by a bicyclist who suffered a broken hip when he ran over a Bird scooter left in the roadway.
In dismissing the case as "dead-on-arrival," Northern District Judge Michael Brown nonetheless painted an unflattering picture of the unregulated free-for-all that—until the streets were cleared by the coronavirus pandemic—often resulted from city's welter of rental scooters.
Bird "moves to dismiss, arguing it can place scooters around the city as it pleases, fail to provide docking stations where customers can return scooters after use, not include any lights or reflectors to make scooters more visible when strewn about the roadway by carefree customers, and avoid liability to plaintiff because it owed him no legal duty," Brown wrote.
"Georgia law supports defendant's argument, and the court grants its motion," he said.
As detailed in court filings, Norman Robinson was riding his bike on Lee Street in Atlanta in September 2018 when he ran into a black Bird scooter left in the street near where a "group of minors" were assembled.
Robinson lost control and wrecked. He was taken to the hospital, where he underwent surgery for a broken hip and spent months in rehabilitation.
He filed a complaint against Bird Rides Inc. in Gwinnett County State Court in October, asserting claims for failure to equip scooters with warning lights or reflectors, failure to prevent scooters from remaining in roadways and failure to prevent minors from handling scooters.
Bird had the suit removed to federal court and moved to have the case dismissed, arguing that it owed no duty to Robinson and that he could not prove its alleged negligence caused his injuries.
Brown agreed.
Robinson had argued Bird should have known its failure to provide docking stations made it foreseeable that "minors or less prudent adults" would leave then in the street and should have installed warning lights or reflectors, Brown wrote.
But his own complaint acknowledged the "causal conduct of some unknown person—perhaps a Bird customer who discarded the scooter in the road, a prospective customer who found the scooter out of charge as often happens and tossed it aside, a pedestrian who found the scooter blocking a sidewalk and threw it in the road, or someone else."
Robinson didn't accuse Bird of throwing the scooter into the road, Brown wrote, and "agrees some other person directly caused his injury."
Georgia law generally affords no duty to protect someone from a third party's actions, Brown said, except in cases where a "special relationship" exists such that the defendant has legal control over the third party.
"No such relationship existed here between defendant and the person who intentionally or accidentally threw the scooter in the road," the judge wrote.
"At best, the unknown person was a customer, at worst a complete stranger," he said.
"In any event, the special relationship exception is inapplicable. It may be foreseeable that a customer would discard a scooter in the roadway. After all, one need merely to drive through town to see how casually electric scooters of all brands litter sidewalks, parking lots, and roadways.
"Nevertheless," he said, "mere foreseeability of a danger does not give rise to a duty, particularly over someone with whom an entity has little or no control."
Brown noted that Robinson had sought leave to amend his complaint but said that there would be no point in doing so.
"The court has determined that plaintiff's complaint, as currently drafted, lacks merit and is legally dead-on-arrival," he said. "Yet after considering the factual basis undergirding plaintiff's allegations, the court also finds that any amendment would be futile."
Robinson's attorneys are Douglasville solos Dennis Francis Jr. and Eufemia Cabrera D'Amour. The two said they had not had an opportunity to plan their next step, if any.
"We knew it was going to be an uphill climb," Francis said.
Bird is represented by John Beck Jr. and Nicole Leet of Gray Rust St. Amand Moffett & Brieske in Atlanta, and Stacy A. Alexejun and Sydney VanBerg of Quarles & Brady in Madison, Wisconsin. They did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.
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
© 2025 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 AllAtlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute read'A Fierce Battle of Expert Witnesses' Expected in Cybersecurity Spat
Former UPS Workers Lodge Discrimination Suit for 'Systemic Racial Bias' in Workplace Culture
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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