Scooters, Sidewalks and Local Ordinances

Township officials across Illinois are seeing a growing number of claims involving electric scooters, particularly where scooters intersect with sidewalks, roadways, and township vehicles. These incidents are often reported as routine negligence or premises claims, but their outcomes increasingly turn on a less obvious factor: whether there were local ordinances in place at the time of the loss clearly regulating where and how scooters could be used. While townships are not typicall y the governmental bodies that enact those ordinances, the existence of local regulation often plays a central role in determining liability. This month’s article uses a recent Indiana appellate decision, along with an Illinois claim analysis, to illustrate why understanding and applying local ordinances has become an essential part of modern public entity risk management.

In Indiana, the Court of Appeals recently addressed a scooter-related injury claim in Areche v. Indianapolis Department of Public Works, 264 N.E.3d 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). The plaintiff in that case was injured while riding an electric scooter on a downtown sidewalk when he struck a hole in the pavement and fell. He sued the City, alleging negligent maintenance of the sidewalk. At first glance, the claim resembled the type of sidewalk defect cases public entities have defended for decades. What changed the analysis was the existence of a municipal ordinance expressly prohibiting the operation of electric scooters on sidewalks.

That ordinance had been adopted as part of the City’s response to the increasing presence of scooters in pedestrian areas and reflected a local policy judgment about the safety risks posed by mixing scooters and foot traffic. Relying on the ordinance, the City argued that the plaintiff’s injury occurred only because he was operating the scooter in a place where it was not permitted to be. The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed summary judgment for the City. The court treated the ordinance not as a technicality, but as a clear expression of local regulation defining lawful use of public space.

For Indiana public entities, the outcome in Areche was decisive because Indiana law allows contributory negligence to bar recovery entirely in tort claims against governmental entities. That doctrine does not apply in the same way under Illinois law. The broader lesson of Areche, however, is not about Indiana’s fault rules. It is about the practical impact of local ordinances in defining responsibility, shaping duty, and framing causation before a claim ever reaches a jury.

That same dynamic arises under Illinois law, even though the legal framework differs. In a recent Illinois claim I reviewed involving a township vehicle and a minor operating a high-powered electric scooter, the claimant sought recovery for injuries allegedly sustained in a collision at an intersection. As with many scooter-related claims, the initial focus was on the conduct of the township driver and the mechanics of the incident. What ultimately drove the liability analysis, however, was the local ordinance in effect at the time of the loss.

The ordinance, adopted by the municipality governing the area where the incident occurred, expressly prohibited the operation of motorized scooters on public streets and other areas open to the public. The regulation was aimed at traffic safety and addressed exactly the type of risk presented by high-powered scooters sharing space with vehicular traffic. Although the township did not enact the ordinance, it was nonetheless entitled to rely on it in evaluating liability.

Under Illinois law, public entities owe a duty of care only to intended and permitted users of their roadways. Since the claimant was operating the scooter in violation of the local ordinance, he was not an intended or permitted user of the roadway. As a result, the township owed no duty arising from his presence there, supporting a full denial of liability. Even apart from duty, the claimant’s unlawful conduct framed the entire analysis and overwhelmingly outweighed any alleged fault by the township driver.

Taken together, these situations highlight several practical lessons for anyone evaluating scooter-related claims:

• Local ordinances often define who is lawfully entitled to use public property;

• Claims involving scooters frequently turn less on how an accident occurred and more on whether the claimant was permitted to be where they were at the time of the incident;

• Ordinances regulating emerging devices can eliminate duty altogether under Illinois law, or significantly narrow the scope of any duty owed;

• Early identification and analysis of applicable municipal codes can prevent otherwise routine claims from escalating into protracted litigation;

• Effective risk management and claim evaluation should account for the local regulatory environment in place at the time of the loss, not solely the conduct of the insured driver or employee.

In both the Indiana and Illinois examples, the ordinance did more than provide background context. It defined lawful conduct, clarified risk allocation, and shaped how causation was analyzed. In Indiana, that analysis combined with contributory negligence to end the case outright. In Illinois, it eliminated duty and supported a denial of liability within a comparative fault framework. While the legal doctrines differ, the practical effect was the same. The presence of a clear local ordinance prevented a routine scooter claim from becoming a prolonged and costly dispute.

For township officials, the takeaway is not that they must enact new regulations themselves, but that they must understand the local regulatory environment in which claims arise. Whether an ordinance was adopted by a city, village, or county, it may still define who is permitted to use public property and under what conditions. Identifying and applying those ordinances early can be just as important as gathering accident reports or witness statements.

As scooters and similar devices become a permanent feature of public spaces, local regulation will continue to influence how liability is assessed and defended. Public entities that recognize the importance of local ordinances and incorporate them into early claim evaluation are better positioned to manage risk, control costs, and avoid unnecessary litigation. In that respect, Areche offers a useful point of comparison, and the Illinois claim described above provides a practical reminder that, regardless of jurisdiction, local rules often determine how public entity claims are resolved.

Steve Judge is a municipal defense attorney and principal of Judge Law, LLC, representing Illinois townships and public entities in litigation, governance, and risk management.