Colorado’s second-highest court ruled on Thursday that electric scooter companies cannot be held liable simply for making scooters available to users who, in turn, cause injuries to others.

Answering the question for the first time, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals stressed that, even though e-scooter providers have no general duty to protect third parties from their users, there could be specific scenarios in which companies can be held responsible — for example, by renting to a customer known to be dangerous.

“We express no opinion on the existence and scope of a company’s duty to third parties in circumstances not alleged in this case. Nor do we consider the nature of any duty Lime might owe to the users of its scooters,” wrote Judge Karl L. Schock in the panel’s Nov. 14 opinion.

A study published this summer by UC San Francisco researchers estimated that e-scooter injuries in the U.S. rose from 8,566 in 2017 to 56,847 in 2022 — a nearly 700% increase. Similarly, hospitalizations from injuries escalated from fewer than 1,000 to more than 6,000 in that six-year-window.

“Our findings stress a concerning trend: helmet usage is noticeably lower among electric vehicle users, and risky behaviors, such as riding under the influence, are more prevalent,” said Kevin D. Li, one of the study’s authors.

Josanna Harrington alleged she was biking in Denver one night in August 2020 when a woman, riding a Lime scooter in the opposite direction, crashed into her. The “Jane Doe” fled the scene and was never identified. Harrington believed the woman to be intoxicated at the time of the accident.

Harrington filed a negligence lawsuit against Lime, accusing the company of failing to take appropriate measures to ensure its users could not injure others.

“By placing scooters into the stream of commerce and littering them all over the City of Denver limits, this Defendant had a duty to ensure that the scooters and its users operated them in a safe manner to protect the public,” wrote her attorneys.

Lime moved to dismiss the lawsuit, invoking a 2005 federal law intended to shield rental car companies from liability for their customers’ negligent actions. Denver District Court Judge Jill D. Dorancy sided with Lime, noting Colorado law imposed no duty for companies in Lime’s shoes to protect the public from injuries its users cause.

“Whichever way it is alleged, ultimately, the Complaint makes it clear that Plaintiff’s injuries were not directly caused by Defendant Lime but were directly caused by the acts of an unidentified third party,” she wrote in September 2023.

During oral arguments to the Court of Appeals panel in October, all parties noted the state legislature or Denver City Council could impose greater responsibilities on e-scooter providers if they wished. While expressing a reluctance to create such obligations themselves, the judges nevertheless appeared uncomfortable with absolving companies of responsibility for third parties’ injuries.

“If I walk out on the street and I suddenly get hit by a scooter that is not supposed to be on the sidewalk and they zoom off, what is the enforcement?” asked Judge Sueanna P. Johnson. “I guess that’s where I’m having trouble with this idea that there’s no duty to the public. Because then there’s no recourse.”

“It’s not being run over by a scooter, your honor. It’s being run over by a person. There’s a person operating that scooter” who has liability, responded attorney Steven R. Bonanno for Lime. “These things happened every day long before scooters were on the road. It’s not that scooters are somehow a new arrival of some high-risk product.”

Other members of the panel were interested in how robustly e-scooter providers could guard against harm.

“Does Lime have any mechanism by which it should not rent to somebody, for example, who has multiple DUIs?” asked Judge Terry Fox.

“If there’s no duty, couldn’t Lime say, ‘I don’t wanna know.’ And then they don’t know?” added Schock. “Lime would only know if they asked that question through its registration process.”

Bonanno deflected the hypothetical questions, arguing only that the general allegations in Harrington’s case did not support liability for Lime.

Ultimately, the panel sided with Lime. Schock noted that courts elsewhere have addressed similar questions, with one set of appellate judges in California finding e-scooter suppliers have a duty to locate their devices in a way that does not create a hazard. But Colorado law did not support the idea that Lime had an obligation to Harrington under the circumstances.

“Harrington makes no allegation in the complaint that Lime’s scooters are inherently dangerous,” Schock wrote. “Whatever the extent of a company’s duty to prevent harm caused by a problem with its product, it has no duty to prevent harm caused by a third party, absent a special relationship between the parties or other special circumstances not present here.”

He added that an additional consideration was the “magnitude and consequences” of requiring e-scooter companies to take preventive steps to monitor and control their scooters at all times.

“The general foreseeability that someone might use the scooter while intoxicated or otherwise in violation of traffic laws cannot alone justify imposing a duty upon Lime to prevent all such improper use,” Schock concluded.

Attorneys for Harrington did not immediately provide a comment on the ruling.

“We appreciate the Court of Appeals’ decision in affirming that users of rental vehicles are responsible for safe and proper use, in adherence with respective terms and conditions, rather than rental companies,” Lime said in a statement. “Lime of course makes it a priority to educate its riders on how to ride safely, and in a manner consistent with its terms and conditions, and consistently encourages safe behavior on our vehicles.”

The case is Harrington v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.