Hit by a Car on an E-Scooter or E-Bike

This is chapter 2 of The E-Scooter and E-Bike Injury Guide.

Key points

• D.C.'s vulnerable-user rule covers people on e-scooters, e-bikes, personal mobility devices, skateboards, and "other similar device[s]" (D.C. Code § 50-2204.51(13)).
• Under it, a rider's negligence bars recovery only if it was a proximate cause of the injury and greater than the combined negligence of all the defendants (D.C. Code § 50-2204.52(a)).
• Maryland keeps contributory negligence; its highest court declined to abolish it in 2013 and left any change to the General Assembly (Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679 (2013)).
• Virginia keeps it too, with a last clear chance doctrine that can still let a negligent rider recover (Coutlakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 293 Va. 212 (2017)).
• Maryland drivers must use due care to avoid any bicycle and pass at least three feet away, and Maryland treats e-scooters and e-bikes as bicycles (Md. Code, Transp. §§ 11-104, 21-1209). Virginia's three-foot rule names e-bikes but not motorized scooters (Va. Code § 46.2-839).

Does D.C.'s vulnerable-user law protect e-scooter and e-bike riders?

Yes. The Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act defines a vulnerable user as "an individual using an all-terrain vehicle, bicycle, dirt bike, electric mobility device, motorcycle, motorized bicycle, motor-driven cycle, non-motorized scooter, personal mobility device, skateboard, or other similar device" (D.C. Code § 50-2204.51(13)). A stand-up e-scooter is an electric mobility device and an e-bike is a motorized bicycle under D.C. law, so both are covered, rented or owned.

The protection is this: in a civil action by a pedestrian or vulnerable user of a public highway or sidewalk who collides with a motor vehicle or another vulnerable user, the plaintiff's negligence does not bar recovery unless it "is a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury and greater than the aggregated total negligence of all the defendants that proximately caused the plaintiff's injury" (D.C. Code § 50-2204.52(a)). The law does not change joint and several liability or the last clear chance doctrine (§ 50-2204.52(b)(1)).

In practice, the insurer can no longer win in D.C. by showing you were a little at fault, for example that you were going a few miles over the limit or rolled through a stop sign the driver also should have seen. It has to show your negligence caused the injury and outweighed the driver's. The statute says your negligence "shall not bar" recovery; it does not say how a court or jury will treat that negligence otherwise, so expect the insurer to argue about it in negotiations anyway.

How does contributory negligence work against riders in Maryland?

A rider whose own negligence helped cause the crash can be barred from recovering anything. The Supreme Court of Maryland (then the Court of Appeals) considered abolishing the rule in Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679 (2013), and declined, writing that "we decline to abrogate Maryland's long-established common law principle of contributory negligence" because the General Assembly had repeatedly chosen not to change it. Maryland's 2026 Vulnerable Road User Protection Act authorizes speed cameras in designated safety corridors; it does not change the civil fault rule.

The insurer must prove your negligence, and it must prove that your negligence was a cause of the crash, not just that you broke a rule somewhere along the way. Maryland's rules of the road also help riders. A driver must "[e]xercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle," must pass at least three feet away in most circumstances, and must yield to a rider lawfully in a bike lane or shoulder before entering or crossing it (Md. Code, Transp. § 21-1209(a), (d)). Because electric bicycles and electric low speed scooters are "bicycles" under § 11-104, those duties run to e-scooter and e-bike riders too.

How does contributory negligence work against riders in Virginia?

The same way, with a last clear chance exception. In Coutlakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 293 Va. 212 (2017), the Supreme Court of Virginia described two kinds of negligent plaintiff who may still recover: a "helpless" plaintiff who could not escape the danger, against a defendant who saw or should have seen the plaintiff in time to avoid the harm; and an "inattentive" plaintiff who could have escaped but did not notice, against a defendant who actually saw the plaintiff and realized, or ought to have realized, the danger in time. The court also held that a plaintiff's continuing negligence does not automatically bar last clear chance.

Virginia's passing statute requires a driver overtaking a bicycle, an electric power-assisted bicycle, or certain other devices to pass "at least three feet to the left" and to change lanes if the lane is too narrow (Va. Code § 46.2-839). It does not name motorized skateboards or scooters, so an e-scooter rider relies on the general duties of care and the ordinary passing rules. Virginia also makes it a crime to drive carelessly or distractedly and cause serious injury or death to a "vulnerable road user," a term that expressly includes a person on a motorized skateboard or scooter or an e-bike who is lawfully on the highway (Va. Code § 46.2-816.1). A charge under that statute does not decide the civil case, but the facts behind it often matter.

One Virginia rule protects riding in pairs: failing to move into single file when overtaken "shall not constitute negligence per se in any civil action" (Va. Code § 46.2-905).

What does the insurer usually argue, and how is it answered?

• "You came off the sidewalk too fast." On a sidewalk or in a crosswalk, a rider generally has the rights of a pedestrian (18 DCMR § 1201.11; Md. Code, Transp. § 21-1202(b); Va. Code § 46.2-904). The question is whether the driver who turned across the crosswalk looked. Video from storefronts, buses, and doorbells often answers it.
• "You were not supposed to be on the sidewalk." A sidewalk rule violation matters only if it helped cause the crash. A driver pulling out of a garage across the sidewalk must yield to everyone on it.
• "You were going too fast." Rental scooters are speed-limited by the company and record the trip. The app data can prove your speed, and it often helps.
• "You were wearing headphones" or "you were on your phone." Those facts have to be proven and have to have caused the crash. Your phone records can also show you were not using it.
• "You came out of nowhere." That usually means the driver did not look. Sight lines, lighting, and the driver's own phone use are fair game.

If the crash happened on a federal parkway or trail, a Metro or county bus was involved, or a government vehicle hit you, different notice rules and defenses apply; see government, Metro, and public property claims.

What if another rider or a cyclist caused the crash?

You can have a claim against them. In D.C., the vulnerable-user protection also applies to a collision between two vulnerable users (D.C. Code § 50-2204.52(a)(1)). The practical problem is insurance: a rider with no auto policy and no homeowners or renters coverage that applies may have no way to pay a judgment, which is why your own coverage matters. See the insurance chapter.

• Previous chapter: Where You Can Ride an E-Scooter or E-Bike
• Next chapter: Rental Scooters and E-Bikes: Waivers, Arbitration, and Ride Data

Related practice areas

Related reading

• D.C.'s vulnerable user law: e-scooter and motorcycle riders
• D.C. ends the 1% bar for cyclists and pedestrians
• Virginia's contributory negligence rule: the 1% problem
• DMV Injury Guide: contributory negligence
• Bicycle Injury Guide: fault rules for cyclists

Responsible attorneys: Ryan C. Posey and Jacob M. Lebowitz. Posey Lebowitz PLLC, 3221 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20007.