The E-Scooter Boom in DC: Injuries, Insurance Gaps, and the Contributory Negligence Problem
Walk a block downtown and you will see them: dockless electric scooters lined up (or toppled over) on seemingly every corner. Since the District's dockless vehicle pilot began in late 2017, shared e-scooters from a rotating cast of operators — Bird, Lime, Skip, and others — have become a genuine part of how Washingtonians get around, and the District Department of Transportation is now running a formal permit program for dockless operators in 2019.
The scooters arrived faster than the law did. Emergency rooms across the country are reporting a wave of scooter-related injuries, and DC is no exception. When a scooter rider is hit by a car in the District, they discover — usually at the worst possible moment — that they are riding through two serious legal gaps.
Gap one: nobody's insurance is designed for this
A scooter rider hurt by a negligent driver can pursue the driver's auto liability insurance, just like a pedestrian or cyclist could. So far, so normal. The gaps appear everywhere else:
- The scooter companies' user agreements are built to push responsibility onto the rider. Riders click through terms that typically include liability waivers and arbitration clauses.
- Your own auto policy may not follow you onto a scooter. Coverages like uninsured motorist protection and PIP are tied to the policy's definitions, and a motorized scooter fits awkwardly at best. Whether any given policy covers a scooter crash is a policy-language question that has to be answered case by case.
- Health insurance ends up carrying much of the load — with subrogation rights against any recovery.
- If the at-fault driver flees or is uninsured — a common scenario in scooter collisions — the rider's options narrow dramatically.
The result: seriously injured riders can find themselves with a clear liability case and no obvious pot of insurance to pay it.
Gap two: the 1% rule still applies to scooter riders
Here is the piece most riders do not know. In 2016, the DC Council passed the Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act (D.C. Law 21-167, codified at D.C. Code §§ 50-2204.51–.53), which we covered when it took effect (see our November and December 2016 posts). That law rescued pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized users from the District's ancient contributory negligence rule — the rule that a victim even 1% at fault recovers nothing. Protected users now lose only if their own negligence exceeds the combined negligence of the drivers involved.
But read the statute's terms carefully: its protection runs to pedestrians and users of "non-motorized" devices. A motorized electric scooter is not a bicycle and is not non-motorized. The consequence, as the law stands in 2019, is stark: the e-scooter rider — among the most physically vulnerable people on the road — is likely still governed by the same pure contributory negligence rule as a driver in a two-ton sedan.
| Road user hit by a car (DC, 2019) | Fault rule |
|---|---|
| Pedestrian | Modified comparative (MVCRA) — recovers unless their negligence exceeds the drivers' |
| Cyclist (traditional bike) | Modified comparative (MVCRA) |
| E-scooter rider | Pure contributory negligence — 1% fault can bar everything |
| Driver | Pure contributory negligence |
That means an insurance adjuster can argue that a scooter rider who drifted from the bike lane, or rolled a stop sign, or wasn't wearing a helmet at night, is barred entirely — arguments the MVCRA took away in pedestrian and bicycle cases. Old plaintiff-protective doctrines like last clear chance (the defendant who had the final opportunity to avoid the crash remains liable) still matter enormously in scooter cases for exactly this reason.
Not every scooter case involves a car
Two other categories are showing up with the scooters themselves. First, riders hurt by the device — brakes that fail, throttles that stick, stem bolts that snap. Shared scooters live hard lives on the street with maintenance schedules the public never sees; where a mechanical failure causes injury, claims against the operator for negligent maintenance (and potentially against the manufacturer) exist outside the user agreement's assumptions. Second, pedestrians hurt by scooters — struck by a rider on the sidewalk, or injured tripping over a device dumped across a walkway or curb ramp. Those victims never clicked any waiver, and their claims against riders and, in appropriate circumstances, operators proceed on ordinary negligence principles.
What this means for injured people in the District
- Treat a scooter crash like a serious auto case from minute one: police report, photos, witness names, and prompt medical care.
- Do not assume you have no case because an adjuster says you were "partly at fault." Contributory negligence is a defense the insurer must prove, and doctrines like last clear chance can defeat it.
- Have every potentially applicable policy reviewed — the driver's, your own auto policy, resident-relative policies, and the operator's coverage — before accepting that there is a gap.
- Watch this space. The Council closed the contributory negligence trap for cyclists and pedestrians in 2016; there is every reason to press for the same protection for scooter riders.
If you or a loved one has been hurt, call Posey Lebowitz at (202) 524-0123 or send us a message for a free consultation.
Part of our DMV case law archive, compiled in 2026 to reflect the archive of some of the most important decisions in injury law.
Update: This gap was closed in 2021 — D.C. Law 23-183, effective March 16, 2021, extended MVCRA comparative-fault protection to e-scooter riders and other "vulnerable users." See our post on DC's new vulnerable user law.