Harrington v. Neutron Holdings, Inc
2024 COA 120. No. 23CA1663. Negligence—Duty of Care—Nonfeasance versus Misfeasance—Special Relationship Between Parties—Electric Scooters.
November 14, 2024
Neutron Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Limebike and/or Lime (Lime), rents electric scooters to the public. Harrington was riding her bicycle in a bike lane in downtown Denver one evening when she was hit and severely injured by someone riding a Lime scooter in the wrong direction. The person riding the scooter fled the scene. Harrington sued Lime for negligence. Lime moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court concluded that Harrington failed to allege facts giving rise to a special relationship that would impose a duty on Lime to protect her from harm caused by a third party, and it dismissed the claim.
On appeal, Harrington argued that the district court erred by concluding that Lime did not owe her a legal duty to protect her from the risk of harm caused by third parties’ use of its scooters. In determining whether a defendant owed a legal duty to protect a plaintiff against an alleged injury, Colorado courts distinguish between claims based on a defendant’s nonfeasance (failure to act) versus claims based on a defendant’s misfeasance (active misconduct). For claims involving nonfeasance, such legal duty exists only when one of six recognized special relationships between the parties exists that would justify the imposition the duty. The court of appeals held that a company’s rental of electric scooters to third parties does not, by itself, create a duty to the general public to protect them from electric scooter users’ unsafe operation of the scooters. Here, except for Harrington’s one allegation that Lime makes scooters available for public use, Harrington’s claim is based entirely on what Lime allegedly did not do to protect her from harm. And Harrington did not contend that any of the six recognized special relationships recognized by Colorado exists in this case. Further, to the extent that Lime’s provision of scooters for public use constitutes a claim of misfeasance, such action is insufficient to create a legal duty on the part of Lime toward Harrington as a member of the general public. Accordingly, Harrington’s claim is primarily one for nonfeasance, and the district court properly dismissed her claim.
The court expressed no opinion on whether a company has a duty to third parties in circumstances other than those alleged in this case, and it did not consider the nature of any duty Lime might owe to the users of its scooters.
The judgment was affirmed.