Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
`Todd D. Carpenter (CA SBN 234464)
`tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
`Scott G. Braden (CA SBN 305051)
`sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
`1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel:
`619-762-1910
`Fax: 619-756-6991
`HINDMAN APC
`Jesse Hindman (CA SBN 222935)
`jesse@hindmanapc.com
`402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel:
`619-255-4078
`Counsel for Plaintiff and Proposed Class
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`ERIN NORMAN, on behalf of herself and all
`Case No.
`others similarly situated,
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff,
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., NEUTRON
`HOLDINGS, INC., SEGWAY, INC. WHICH
`WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS
`SEGWAY INC. OF DELAWARE, and XIOAMI
`USA LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff Erin Norman (“Plaintiff”), brings this action on behalf of herself and all others
`similarly situated against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Neutron Holdings, Inc. doing
`business under the name Lime (“Lime”), Segway, Inc. (“Segway”), and Xioami USA LLC (“Xioami”)
`(collectively, with Segway, the “Manufacturer Defendants”) and states:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`Beginning in 2017, scooter rental companies (Bird, Lime, Jump) have proliferated
`
`around the United States—offering consumers a purportedly safe and convenient way to navigate cities
`as opposed to public transportation or automobiles.
`
`
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Jump, a division of the ride-sharing app company, Uber, is one such scooter rental
`
`company and has deployed a fleet of tens of thousands of scooters in cities across the country,
`including, inter alia, Atlanta, Denver, New Orleans, Tampa and San Diego. Uber recently sold its
`“Jump” business to Lime in or around May 2020 (hereinafter, the entities are collectively referred to
`as “Jump.”).
`Jump advertises its scooters as “fun, affordable, and easy to use” and as requiring no
`
`instruction of any sort before a rider is able to lease a scooter and ride it. All a prospective rider needs
`to do is download an application to their smartphone, use the app to locate an available scooter, activate
`the scooter with the app, and begin riding.
`To ride a scooter safely, due to the design and geometry of the vehicle, a rider must
`
`always use both hands. Attempting to ride a scooter with one hand causes it to become very unstable—
`a danger that increases with speed. Scooter manufacturers display warnings about the dangers of one-
`handed operation of a scooter prominently in the owner’s manual.
`Both the Manufacturing Defendants who designed and sold the scooters to Uber and
`
`Lime are well aware that these scooters will be operated on city streets and that riders must obey all
`traffic laws while riding.
`Further, Defendants are well aware that virtually every state, including California,
`
`requires bicycle or scooter operators to employ hand signals when making turns if their bicycle or
`scooter is not equipped with an alternate means of signaling a turn.
`Jump does not warn its customers that following traffic laws will require operation of a
`
`scooter in a manner that is well known to be dangerous to passengers.
`The Manufacturing Defendants designed and intended their scooters to be used on city
`
`streets where signaling is required as a matter of law, but they did not equip their scooters with any
`device or mechanism to safely signal a turn while operating the scooter with both hands. Following the
`deployment of the scooters, the Manufacturing Defendants have actual knowledge that the scooters
`have been and continue to used in this manner; as an alternative to motorized transportation on city
`streets.
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`As a result of the design defects, failure to warn, breach of express and implied
`
`warranties, and negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff was severely injured while riding a Jump scooter
`and operating it in a manner prescribed by the laws of California. Ms. Norman brings this suit both to
`compensate her for her significant personal injuries, but also to seek a public injunction against
`Defendants enjoining them from selling or leasing scooters in the State of California without first
`providing the necessary warnings and/or providing a safe means of legal operation.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has original jurisdiction of this Action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C § 1332 (d)(2). The matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the
`sum or value of $5,000,000 and at least some members of the proposed Class have a different
`citizenship from Defendants.
`The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
`
`each Defendant is a corporation or other business entity authorized to conduct and does conduct
`business in the State of California. Defendants are registered with the California Secretary of State to
`do sufficient business with sufficient minimum contacts in California, and/or otherwise intentionally
`avails themselves of the California market through the placement of their scooter products into the
`stream of commerce throughout major metropolitan cities in California, including in the Northern
`District.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because Defendants transact substantial
`
`business in this District. A substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims arose here.
`PARTIES
`At the time of the incident described in this complaint, Erin Norman was a resident of
`
`San Francisco, California. Ms. Norman currently lives in Lakewood, Colorado.
`Uber Technologies is a Delaware corporation, with headquarters in San Francisco,
`
`California. In addition to ride-sharing services, Uber offers scooter rental services through its
`subsidiary, Jump.
`
`
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Lime is a U.S. company with headquarters in San Francisco, California. Lime offers
`
`dockless vehicles which users find and unlock via a mobile app which knows the location of available
`vehicles using GPS. Lime recently purchased the Jump business from Uber.
`Segway is a U.S. company with headquarters in Bedford, New Hampshire. As of April
`
`2015, Segway is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ninebot, Inc., a Chinese transportation/robotics
`company, headquartered in Beijing, China. Segway/Ninebot manufacture and sell numerous motorized
`personal vehicles, including the electric scooters marketed, distributed, and leased by Lime and/or
`Uber.
`
`Xiaomi USA, is the U.S.-based subsidiary of Xiaomi, a Chinese electronics company
`
`based in Beijing, China. Xiaomi USA is based in San Jose, CA. Xiaomi manufactures numerous
`electronic and robotic devices, including the electric scooters marketed, distributed, and leased by Lime
`and/or Uber.
`
`A.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Electric Scooters Are Unstable Unless Operated with Both Hands
` While scooter manufacturers and scooter leasing companies like to claim that scooters
`are easy to ride and as safe as bicycles, that is not the case.
`Electric scooters are much less stable than bicycles. On a scooter, as compared to a
`
`bicycle, the handlebars and tires are all on the same axis of rotation, unlike bicycles that have an offset
`between the handlebars and front tire. The lack of offset on a scooter makes the scooter more unstable
`than a normal bicycle, especially at speed.
`Because the scooter’s front wheel is almost directly in line with where the rider stands,
`
`it makes the scooter more prone to tipping over. In contrast, a bicycle has a longer wheelbase. The front
`wheel of a bicycle is larger than a scooter’s and the wheel is further out in front of the rider. All of this
`makes bicycles more stable and more forgiving when a rider encounters roadway unevenness.
`Additionally, scooters have much shorter handlebars than bicycles. This means that
`
`relatively small movements of the hands on the handlebars can translate to greater turning of the tire,
`increasing instability, especially at speed. In other words, scooters have a much smaller margin for
`error than bicycles and much more easily become unstable with less movement.
`
`
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Finally, scooters have much smaller tires than bicycles, adding to their comparatively
`
`greater instability. Larger tires more easily deal with rocks, cracks and potholes than the scooters’
`smaller tires, which are solid as opposed to air-filled. The scooters’ smaller, solid, wheels are much
`less forgiving on roadway imperfections than larger, air-filled bicycle wheels. A small rock or height
`differential that can be easily navigated over by a bicyclist, can easily cause an electric scooter rider to
`lose control and crash. Smaller tires are also more prone to wobble at speed than larger tires.
`If an electric scooter rider takes his or her hand off the handlebars to signal that the rider
`
`is turning or stopping, as the California Vehicle Code requires, the rider’s risk of losing control and
`crashing is greatly increased. Complying with the law puts the scooter rider at great risk.
`All of these factors that render scooters less stable than bicycles are known to
`
`Defendants. Indeed, Segway/Ninebot expressly warns its customers that operating a scooter safely can
`only be accomplished with both hands and places this, or similar, warnings in its owner manuals:1
`
`
`
`
`1https://store.segway.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/warranty/kickscooter-es-user-manual.pdf
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Electric Scooters Are Not Equipped with Turn Signals
`None of the electric scooters marketed, deployed, and leased by Defendants Uber or
`
`Lime to the public in California, which on information and belief, are manufactured by Defendants
`Segway and Xiaomi USA, are equipped with electric turn signals.
`The technology exists to add turn signals to the scooters. Manufacturers of personally
`
`owned scooters have added turn signals.
`Additionally, aftermarket turn signal products are widely available which can be affixed
`
`to personally owned scooters for safer operation. However, the scooters deployed on the public by
`Defendants for single use, app-based leasing, expressly prohibit any modification to the scooters.
`According to Lime’s User Agreement, users must “return (meaning locking up and/or deactivating) a
`Product in the same condition in which you received it. If you damage it (accidentally or intentionally),
`or fail to properly return it and damage occurs, you’ll be responsible for the associated costs.”2 Lime
`scooters also have an express 24 hour limitation on use, so it would be illogical for any user to attempt
`to add turn signals to a scooter.
`There is no excuse for Defendants not to add turn signals to the electric scooters
`
`deployed on the unsuspecting public. If these Defendants cared about the safety of their riders, they
`would add turn signals to every scooter in their fleet.
`California Law Requires Riders to Signal with One Hand When Turning or Slowing
`C.
`Down/Stopping if No Other Means of Signaling Is Available
`
`Under California Vehicle Code Section 21221, electric scooter riders are required to
`
`follow the same rules applicable to motorists.
`California, like most states, requires the operator of any vehicle to signal before turning.
`
`Vehicle Code Section 22107 requires the use of a signal before turning. More specifically, California
`Vehicle Code Section 22108 requires that “[a]ny signal of intention to turn right or left shall be given
`continuously during the last 100 feed traveled by the vehicle before turning.”
`California Vehicle Code Section 22109 provides that “[n]o person shall stop or
`
`suddenly decrease the speed of the vehicle on a highway without first giving an appropriate signal in
`
`
`2 http://www.li.me/user-agreement
`
`
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`the manner provided in this chapter to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is
`an opportunity to give the signal.”
`Thus, a scooter rider cannot turn right or left, slow down or stop before signaling under
`
`California law.
`California Vehicle Code Section 22110 provides that “[d]rivers of vehicles not required
`
`to be and not equipped with turn signals,” like scooters, “shall give a hand and arm signal when required
`by this chapter.”
`California Vehicle Code Section 22111 specifies the way in which hand signals shall be
`
`given: “All required signals given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of a vehicle in the
`following manner: (a) Left turn--hand and arm extended horizontally beyond the side of the vehicle.
`(b) Right turn--hand and arm extended upward beyond the side of the vehicle, except that a bicyclist
`[or scooter operator] may extend the right hand and arm horizontally to the right side of the bicycle [or
`scooter]. (c) Stop or sudden decrease of speed signal--hand and arm extended downward beyond the
`side of the vehicle.”
`Thus, under California law, if a scooter operator is turning, stopping, or slowing down,
`
`the operator of the scooter must—for 100 continuous feet—operate the scooter with one hand while
`giving the prescribed signal with the other hand. In the case of braking, this would require the operator
`to both operate the brake and steer the scooter while giving the appropriate hand signal.
`Defendants Knew That Jump Scooters Would be Operated in an Unsafe Manner and
`D.
`Failed to Properly Warn
`
`Defendants were and continue to be aware that Jump Scooters would be operated in an
`
`unsafe manner on California roadways.
`Uber expressly requires all of its riders to agree to obey all traffic laws while operating
`
`a Jump scooter.
` With the recent acquisition of Jump by Lime Scooters3—merging two of the largest
`scooter rental companies into one organization—the Jump Scooter webpage now redirects its
`
`
`3 In May, Lime acquired Jump and the two companies now are a single entity. See “Lime now owns
`Uber’s
`Jump bike and
`scooter
`service” https://www.engadget.com/uber-lime-investment-
`144314796.html (last accessed July 22, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`customers to the Lime’s website for purposes of safety information and rules that renters must follow
`when operating a Jump or Lime Scooter.
`The Lime website expressly notes both the requirement to follow all traffic laws and
`
`the requirement that Jump/Lime scooters be operated with one hand when turning or stopping.
`Specifically, Lime’s User Agreement provides:
`
`While we do our best to educate you on local laws governing how to use our Products,
`please ensure that you have familiarized yourself with these laws as well, which you
`must follow when you use our Services. Don’t use our Services in prohibited areas,
`and make sure you understand the laws on sidewalk use, parking, seat belts, child safety
`seats and alcohol/drug use during operation.4
`Specifically, Lime’s website advises all riders it must follow all traffic laws when riding
`
`a Jump/Lime Scooter:
`
`
`Then, on the same page, and just below the image above, Lime/Jump make clear that
`
`this requirement necessitates the operation of the scooter with one hand when turning or stopping:
`
`
`
`
`4 http://www.li.me/user-agreement
`
`
`
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`
`The Manufacturing Defendants are well aware that the scooters they manufacture for
`
`Uber/Lime will be operated on public roadways and subject to Uber/Lime’s rules, which require the
`rider to operate the scooter consistent with California traffic laws, including the requirement that the
`scooters be operated with only one hand while signaling.
`Jump is likewise well aware that its scooters will be operated on public roadways:
`
`There will not always be a designated place for you to ride, such as a bike lane, so
`exercise caution when riding around cars and other traffic (we aren’t responsible for the
`actions of drivers, pedestrians, or other third parties).5
`Despite this knowledge, and despite knowing that it is unsafe to operate a scooter with
`
`one hand, the Manufacturing Defendants deliver scooters to Uber and Lime without any alternative
`manner to indicate either turning or slowing/stopping, such as the inclusion of turn signals and adequate
`brake lights, when such options are available and could be easily incorporated into the scooter’s design
`at a reasonable cost.
`In short, electric scooters are very unstable and require two hands. Following California
`
`law and giving hand signals is dangerous for a scooter rider. The only way to cure this danger is for
`scooter companies, including Defendants, to either make the scooters more stable, or to add electric
`turn signals to the scooters, permitting riders to comply with the California Vehicle Code while keeping
`both hands on the handlebars at all times. The Defendants’ scooters also fail to adequately warn users
`of these risks because they do not warn that scooter riders’ compliance with the California Vehicle
`Code causes Defendants’ scooters to be inherently unsafe to ride.
`Plaintiff Followed California Traffic Laws and Was Injured
`E.
`On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff Norman downloaded the Jump application onto her
`
`smartphone and opened an account with Jump for the purpose or renting scooters to travel around the
`San Francisco area.
` When registering as a user, Norman read the rules requiring her to abide by all
`applicable traffic laws in all respects while operating a Jump scooter, which included the requirement
`that she use hand signals when initiating turns or slowing/stopping a scooter.
`
`
`5 https://www.li.me/user-agreement
`
`
`
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`
`On October 29, 2019, at 5:50 p.m., Norman used the Jump application on her
`
`smartphone and initiated a scooter rental in San Francisco.
`Approximately 15 minutes later, Norman was operating her scooter at the intersection
`
`of Pierce St. and Haight St. in San Francisco, when she removed her hand from the handlebars of the
`scooter to signal that she was initiating a turn.
` When Norman removed her hand from the handlebar of the scooter, the scooter became
`unstable and Plaintiff lost control of the scooter and the scooter turned quickly, sending Plaintiff falling
`to the concrete.
`Police and ambulance were called to the scene of the accident and Norman was taken
`
`to the hospital, CPMC Davies Campus, where she was re-triaged to Zuckerberg San Francisco General
`Hospital and Trauma Center due to the seriousness of her orthopedic injuries.
` Ms. Norman’s injuries included a hip dislocation and multiple related fractures which
`required a complex emergency surgery lasting hours. These injuries have required many months of
`medical care and intense physical therapy which is ongoing even nine months after the accident.
`Substantial future medical care is anticipated including the prospect of multiple hip replacement
`surgeries over her lifetime. Ms. Norman’s quality of life has been unquestionably diminished.
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`In addition to her individual claims, Plaintiff brings an action for injunctive relief on
`
`behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, as well as the general public, pursuant to Rule 23(a),
`and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class against
`Defendants for violations of California state laws:
`All individuals in the State of California who will rent one of Defendant’s scooters.
`Excluded from the Class are Defendants, as well as their officers, employees, agents or affiliates, and
`any judge who presides over this action, as well as all past and present employees, officers and directors
`of any of the Defendants. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this Class
`definition, including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with her motion for Class
`certification, or at any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts
`obtained during discovery.
`
`
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Numerosity: The Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the proposed Class contains hundreds of
`thousands of individuals who have been harmed or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ conduct as
`alleged herein. The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff.
`Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact: This action
`
`involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions affecting individual
`Class members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the
`following:
`
`Whether Defendants sold, marketed, leased or rented scooters that are
`a.
`unreasonably dangerous for use on public roads;
`Whether Defendants’ product literature fails to provide adequate warnings of
`b.
`danger or instructs riders to operate the scooters in an unsafe manner;
`Whether Defendants’ product literature misleads the public concerning the
`c.
`safety of operating the scooters on public roads, the ability to safely comply with California
`traffic laws and the ability to safely hand signal;
`Whether Defendants knowingly sold, leased or rented scooters that were unsafe
`d.
`for their intended use on public roads or knowingly provided inadequate or misleading product
`literature;
`Whether there are alternative means of signaling turns and/or stops on
`e.
`Defendants’ scooters (i.e. simple turn signal lights) that would have removed the danger to
`Plaintiff and the public;
`Whether Defendants’ alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted;
`f.
`g.
`Whether Defendants engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or fraudulent business
`practices under the laws asserted;
`Whether Defendants engaged in false or misleading advertising;
`h.
`i.
`Whether the products manufactured or leased by Defendants were defective due
`to the safety issues inherent in the design and rules of use;
`
`
`
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`
`Whether Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability when
`j.
`selling, leasing or renting scooters that could not safely be operated on public roads, or in
`compliance with applicable rules or relevant California traffic laws.
`Whether an injunction is necessary to prevent Defendants from continuing to
`k.
`sell, lease or rent scooters for use on public roads that are unreasonably unsafe for such use or
`are marketed with inadequate or misleading product literature.
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class
`
`because, inter alia, all Class members have been deceived (or were likely to be deceived) by
`Defendants’ false and deceptive conduct and were or could be injured by Defendant’s selling, leasing
`or renting of inherently unsafe products. Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on
`behalf of herself and all members of the Class.
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of
`
`the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, and
`Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff has no antagonistic or adverse interest to
`those of the Class.
`Superiority: The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff and
`
`the Class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to
`afford relief to her and the Class for the wrongs alleged. The risk of inconsistent or varying
`adjudications on the ultimate question as to whether the scooter vehicles can be operated safely in
`compliance with California law is significant. Thousands of individuals operate the scooter vehicles
`and are injured on an annual basis. Absent the class action, the risk of varying or contrasting verdicts
`or adjudication of liability is significant. Such findings on liability at trial could engender a preclusive
`effect or impact the claims of other similarly situated putative Class members.
`All Class members, including Plaintiff, were or will be exposed to one or more of
`
`Defendants’ misleading, unsafe and unfair practices. All Class members were and are required to obey
`all California traffic laws when operating a scooter manufactured, sold, leased or rented by Defendants
`and all Class members are uniformly exposed to the design defect and inadequate and/or misleading
`product literature associated with Defendants’ scooters that renders them patently unsafe to operate on
`
`
`
`12
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`public roadways. In addition, it can be reasonably presumed that all Class members, including, Plaintiff
`affirmatively acted in response to the requirements of operation under the terms of Uber/Lime’s
`customer lease agreements.
`Defendants keep extensive records of their customers, their contact information, and
`
`their purchase, lease or rental histories, including maintaining email, phone and address records that
`could be used to disseminate notice of this action in accordance with due process requirements.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Negligence/Gross Negligence
`(On behalf of Plaintiff)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff reincorporates and realleges all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendants had an affirmative duty to provide a safe product to
`
`their customers and to provide for the safety of their customers. Defendants as manufacturers, sellers,
`lessors and renters of scooters that will be operated on city streets, had a duty to use appropriate
`reasonable care to provide a safe riding experience for their customers.
`Defendants breached those duties by negligently providing scooters for use on public
`
`roadways that could not be safely operated while obeying relevant traffic laws. Defendants knew that
`the scooters would be used on public roadways in California, where operators would be required
`pursuant to general safety standards, applicable rules and relevant traffic laws to drive the scooter with
`one hand when signaling turns or deceleration, but failed to provide a safe way to operate the scooters
`while obeying traffic laws.
`Defendants further breached their duty to Plaintiff by negligently failing to warn her of
`
`the dangers posed by operating the vehicle in compliance with general safety standards, applicable
`rules and California traffic laws, which Defendants knew would require Plaintiff to unsafely operate
`the scooter with one hand.
`Despite warnings and instructions from Manufacturing Defendants that their scooters
`
`could not safely be operated without both hands on the handlebars, Lime\Jump requires that its
`customers obey all traffic laws including use of hand signals while turning or stopping. Despite
`
`
`
`13
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`knowledge that their scooters would be put into use on California roadways without functionality that
`would allow operators to safely ride and comply with applicable rules and traffic laws including use of
`hand signals while turning or stopping, Manufacturing Defendants sold or otherwise provided scooters
`to its customers including Lime\Jump in California.
`As a direct and legal consequence of the negligence and gross negligence of Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff was harmed and sustained significant injuries including acute trauma to her hip which has
`required and will continue to require medical attention at great cost to Plaintiff. In addition, Plaintiff
`has suffered mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering, all to her general damage in an amount
`which will be proven at trial.
`As a direct and legal consequence of the negligence and gross negligence of Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff was disabled and may be disabled in the future from attending to the duties of her future
`occupation. Plaintiff has lost earnings and may continue to lose earnings in the future, all in an amount
`that is currently unknown, but will be proven at trial.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Strict Products Liability – Design and Manufacturing Defect
`(On behalf of Plaintiff)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff reincorporates and realleges all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`Defendants designed, manufactured, sold, leased or rented the scooter Plaintiff was
`
`riding when she was injured.
`At the time the scooter that Plaintiff was riding when she was injured left the control of
`
`Defendants, it was dangerous and defective as a result of a design, manufacture, alteration, or
`modification by Defendants. The defects included the inability to signal either a turn or
`deceleration/stopping without attempting to operate the scooter with one hand, which was an inherently
`dangerous way to operate the scooter.
`Defendants knew and intended that the scooter would be purchased, rented, leased and
`
`operated by members of the general public who would rely on the incorrect belief that Defendants had
`
`
`
`14
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06700-SK Document 1 Filed 09/24/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`designed, manufactured, marketed and distributed the scooter in a safe manner and had also transmitted
`any necessary and relevant warnings about the use of the scooter.
`Defendants have recklessly designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, leased and/or
`
`rented the scooters with wanton and willful disregard for the health of Plaintiff and others, and with
`malice, placing their economic interest above the health and safety of Plaintiff.
`The scooter used by Plaintiff was not substantially changed, modified, or altered at any
`
`time and in any manner whatsoever prior to use and the scooter reached Plaintiff in a condition that
`was unreasonably dangerous to her.
`At the time of Plaintiff’s accident, she was using the scooter in a manner that was
`
`foreseeable by Defendants and in the manner in which the scooter was specifically intended to be used.
`At no time did Plaintiff have reason to believe that the scooter was in a condition not
`
`suitable for its proper and intended use. Furthermore Plaintiff was not able to discover, nor could she
`have discovered through the