E-Scooter & Electric Bike Accidents: Who’s Liable in Utah?

E-Scooters can cause painful injuries.

It was a summer evening in downtown Salt Lake City. The sidewalks buzzed with food trucks and the hum of traffic, and tucked between the cars and pedestrians were dozens of e-scooters. College students zipped past on the green-painted bike lanes, business professionals used scooters for a last-mile commute, and tourists tried them out for the novelty.

Then, in a blink, it happened. A rider swerved to avoid a pothole, hit a patch of gravel, and tumbled into the crosswalk. A driver slammed on the brakes, the scooter clattered to the pavement, and bystanders froze. What began as a convenient way to get across town became a collision of questions no one on the street could answer: Who pays for this? Is it the rider, the driver, the city that maintains the road, or even the scooter company itself?

As e-scooters and electric bikes multiply across Salt Lake City, Provo, and other Utah cities, these questions have become urgent. The convenience of shared mobility has outpaced the legal clarity. For anyone injured in such an accident—whether a rider, a pedestrian, or a driver—the path to accountability winds through a thicket of laws and liability theories.

The Rise of Micromobility in Utah

In the last five years, Utah’s urban landscape has changed dramatically. Companies like Lime, Bird, and Spin rolled out fleets of scooters seemingly overnight. Provo embraced them as part of its effort to reduce car dependency, while Salt Lake City integrated scooters and e-bikes into its push for sustainable transit.

The appeal is obvious. Scooters are cheap, quick, and fun. E-bikes extend mobility even further, helping riders climb hills and travel longer distances without breaking a sweat. College students ride them across campus, tourists explore downtown with them, and workers use them to bridge the gap between train stops and offices.

But as usage has grown, so have the accidents. Emergency rooms in Utah County and Salt Lake County report spikes in head injuries, broken bones, and even fatalities tied to scooters and e-bikes. Many victims are riders themselves, but others are pedestrians struck on sidewalks or drivers caught in collisions. And with each accident comes the question of liability.

Rider Responsibility: When the Operator Is at Fault

Utah law treats scooters and e-bikes more like bicycles than like cars. Riders are expected to follow traffic laws: stop at signals, yield to pedestrians, and avoid riding on sidewalks where prohibited.

Yet, as anyone walking downtown can attest, many riders ignore those rules. They weave through cars, ride two to a scooter, or jump curbs. When an accident results, the rider may be held responsible.

Imagine a college student in Provo who darts across University Avenue on a scooter against the light. A driver with the right of way swerves to avoid him and ends up colliding with another car. Several people are hurt in the chain reaction. In that scenario, the police would likely place primary blame on the scooter rider. Even though the scooter came from a rental company, the rider couldn’t avoid liability by pointing to the brand name on the handlebars—when you climb aboard, you take on the responsibility to ride safely and follow the rules of the road.

But here’s the rub: most riders don’t carry liability insurance that covers scooter use. Auto policies rarely extend to e-scooters, and homeowners’ or renters’ insurance may or may not apply. That means even if the rider is legally at fault, victims may struggle to collect compensation unless other parties are involved.

Drivers and Shared Fault

Now flip the scenario. A driver turns right on red without checking the bike lane and collides with a scooter. The rider is thrown to the pavement, sustaining serious injuries. In this case, the driver can be held liable, just as if they struck a cyclist or pedestrian.

Utah’s comparative negligence system complicates matters. Suppose the scooter rider was also speeding downhill without a helmet. A jury could split fault—for instance, assigning 70% blame to the driver and 30% to the rider. The rider would still recover damages, but the award would be reduced by their percentage of fault.

In practice, these cases become battles of evidence. Was the scooter light functioning? Did the driver signal? Was the rider on the correct side of the street? Because scooters are so new, juries sometimes struggle to apply familiar rules of the road, and that uncertainty can affect outcomes.

Municipal Liability: The Pothole Problem

Not all accidents stem from reckless riding or careless driving. Sometimes, the culprit is the road itself. A hidden pothole, an uneven grate, or an icy patch can send a scooter rider flying.

At first glance, that seems like grounds to sue the city. After all, isn’t road maintenance the government’s job? The answer is: it’s complicated.

Utah’s Governmental Immunity Act protects cities and counties from many lawsuits. You generally can’t sue a city simply because a road was slick or because snow wasn’t cleared quickly enough. However, immunity isn’t absolute. If a municipality knew about a specific hazard and failed to fix it in a reasonable time, it may be liable.

But deadlines are brutal. Claims against government entities often require notice within one year—far shorter than the four years you’d normally have to bring an injury claim. For scooter riders injured by road defects, that timeline can mean the difference between recovery and walking away empty-handed.

The Scooter Companies: Defective Devices and Negligence

When scooters first appeared in Utah, stories circulated about handlebars snapping mid-ride or brakes failing on hills. While companies insist their devices are regularly inspected, wear and tear is inevitable with thousands of daily rides.

If a scooter malfunctions due to poor maintenance or defective design, the rental company—or even the manufacturer—can be held liable. These cases fall under product liability law. The rider doesn’t have to prove negligence, only that the scooter was unreasonably dangerous when used as intended.

One Utah case involved a brake failure that sent a rider into traffic. The investigation revealed the company hadn’t replaced worn brake cables despite multiple complaints. The injured rider’s claim against the company succeeded, not because she rode perfectly, but because the device itself was unsafe.

E-bike accidents can raise similar issues. Batteries that overheat, motors that cut out unexpectedly, or defective frames can all give rise to product liability claims.

Insurance Gaps and the Reality of Recovery

Even when liability is clear, victims often face a harsh reality: insurance doesn’t always cover scooter accidents neatly.

• Riders: Auto insurance usually excludes scooters. Health insurance covers medical bills but not lost wages or pain and suffering.

• Drivers: If a driver hits a scooter, their auto insurance typically applies. But minimum coverage limits in Utah may not come close to covering severe injuries.

• Scooter companies: Their user agreements often disclaim liability, forcing riders into arbitration. While courts sometimes uphold these waivers, they aren’t always bulletproof.

For injured parties, this patchwork can feel like chasing shadows. That’s why early legal advice is critical—to identify every possible avenue of recovery, from the driver’s insurance to a defective product claim.

A Story from Downtown Salt Lake

Imagine a young professional who had taken a scooter from the Trax station to her office. She was riding in the designated lane when a delivery van veered right across her path. She collided with the side, fractured her wrist, and couldn’t type for weeks—a serious problem in her line of work.

The delivery company initially denied liability, suggesting she had been in the driver’s blind spot. But traffic camera footage told a different story: the van had failed to signal and cut directly into the lane. Comparative negligence never came into play because the evidence was clear. The company eventually settled, but not before the rider endured months of lost income and physical therapy.

Her story underscores the broader truth: scooters may feel like toys, but the consequences of accidents are anything but.

The Human Cost

Beyond statutes and liability, these accidents leave real scars. Riders often suffer head injuries, even when helmets are worn. Pedestrians struck by scooters face broken bones and torn ligaments. Drivers live with guilt even when the law absolves them.

Families struggle too. Parents worry about their teenagers riding scooters downtown. Commuters weigh the risks against convenience. Cities debate whether scooters are worth the injuries they bring. And behind every headline is someone like Ethan or Maria or Jason—Utahns whose lives were suddenly changed by a few seconds of bad luck on two electric wheels.

Looking Ahead: Balancing Innovation and Safety

Micromobility isn’t going away. If anything, e-scooters and e-bikes will become even more embedded in Utah’s transportation system as the state pushes for cleaner, denser cities. The challenge is finding balance: making the devices accessible without ignoring the risks.

Cities can help with better infrastructure: protected bike lanes, smoother pavement, and clearer signage. Companies can help with stricter maintenance, helmet incentives, and honest warnings about risks. And drivers, as always, must adapt to new road companions, learning to share space with vehicles that are small, fast, and fragile.

But when those measures fall short and accidents happen, Utah law provides paths—imperfect and winding though they may be—for victims to seek accountability.

Final Thoughts

The image of scooters scattered across sidewalks has become as much a part of Utah’s urban life as the mountains that frame our skylines. They represent freedom, fun, and a modern way to get around. But they also represent risk, and when that risk turns into injury, the question of liability is anything but simple.

Sometimes the answer lies with the rider who ignored the rules. Sometimes it’s the driver who failed to yield. Sometimes it’s the city that left a hazard unfixed, or the company that put a defective device on the street. Each case is its own story, with its own chain of decisions and failures that led to an avoidable collision.

At The Legal Beagle, we’ve seen firsthand how confusing and overwhelming this process can be for victims. But the law is clear on one point: you shouldn’t have to shoulder the burden alone. Whether you were a rider, a pedestrian, or a driver caught in the chaos, accountability matters. Because behind the statistics are Utah families simply trying to heal, and they deserve both justice and safety on the roads we all share.