What happened?
On the morning of February 10, 2023, the claimant was riding an e-scooter from his home to his workplace. While riding, he attempted to reduce speed, engaged the brake lever, and fell due to the unstable properties of the e-scooter combined with a wet road surface. The fall resulted in injuries, and the claimant sought recognition of the incident as a work-related accident and the granting of a disability pension.
The defendant insurance institution argued that the accident was attributable to the specific risks of e-scooters, which should be classified as trendy sports devices rather than vehicles within the meaning of the Austrian Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrsordnung, StVO). Such devices require a high degree of skill and therefore cannot be considered regular means of transportation for commuting. The lower courts ruled in favor of the defendant.
The claimant appealed, disputing the classification of the e-scooter as a toy or sports device and asserting that it was a permissible and common mode of transportation for commuting.
How did the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) rule?
Like the lower courts, the OGH ruled that the accident was not attributable to a general commuting hazard but to the specific risks of the e-scooter. The court further explained that, due to their technical characteristics and classification by lawmakers as trendy sports devices, e-scooters do not qualify as typical means of transportation for commuting. Statutory accident insurance only covers typical commuting risks, not the specific dangers associated with the use of sports or recreational devices (which include trendy sports devices).
The OGH also pointed out that while the legal classification of e-scooters under the StVO may serve as a guideline, it is not decisive. What matters is whether the device is a safe and common mode of transportation. In the case of e-scooters, their reliance on a high degree of skill and the associated specific risks exclude them from this category.
The claimant’s appeal was dismissed, and he was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
(Decision 10 ObS 55/24x dated October 8, 2024)
I will be happy to advise and support you in matters of civil law and civil procedure.
