Court upholds electric scooter rider’s full insurance claim

Iceland’s Court of Appeal has upheld an electric scooter rider’s right to full compensation from the liability insurance of the car that hit him in Reykjavík. The court found that the insurer, VÍS, had not proved that he was speeding or had acted with gross negligence, mbl.is reported.

The ruling confirms a Reykjavík District Court judgment from October last year. The case concerned whether VÍS was liable for compensation, not the amount to be paid.

The crash happened on the morning of June 9, 2022, as the man was travelling to work. He was riding east along a path beside Hringbraut and across a pedestrian crossing on a slip road to Nauthólsvegur, now called Hlíðarfótur, when a car turning off Hringbraut hit him. He was thrown onto the road, lost consciousness and suffered several injuries.

VÍS argued that modifications to the scooter made it subject to registration and insurance requirements, and that rules for apportioning fault between vehicles should apply. The insurer said the man was entirely responsible for the collision, alleging that he had ridden too fast, entered the car’s path without warning and failed to watch for traffic.

The Apollo Ghost scooter had been advertised with a top speed of 25 kilometres per hour, and it was undisputed that changes had enabled it to go faster. In police speed tests, it reached 47.2 kilometres per hour in third gear on turbo mode, and 26.6 kilometres per hour in first gear on the same setting. The tests showed the scooter’s capabilities, not how fast the man was travelling at the time of the crash.

The man said he usually rode in first gear on turbo mode. He could not recall his exact speed before the collision, but estimated that he had been travelling at about 10 to 15 kilometres per hour given the conditions.

The Court of Appeal said the precise modifications had not been established. Based on the evidence, it found that the scooter had left the manufacturer with a 25-kilometre-per-hour limit and had been designed for speeds up to that level. It agreed with the district court that, under the traffic law definition in force at the time, the scooter qualified as a bicycle and did not require registration or insurance.

The district court had also found no proof that the man was travelling too fast for the conditions. It noted that he had to negotiate sharp turns at the crossing, which would have made it difficult to keep his balance at high speed. Witness testimony did not establish that he had shown such a serious lack of care as to constitute gross negligence. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that VÍS had not proved he should lose his right to compensation in whole or in part.