OGH Strengthens Protection of E-Scooter Riders

Sept 10, 2026 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) examined the issue of liability arising from a collision between a passenger vehicle and an e-scooter on a shared pedestrian and bicycle path.

The plaintiff was travelling at approximately 23 km/h on a shared pedestrian and bicycle path open to traffic in both directions. The first defendant intended to turn left across the oncoming lane in order to enter a restaurant parking lot. Due to a queue of traffic, the parties were initially unable to see one another. The first defendant did not stop until their vehicle had entered approximately three metres of the shared pedestrian and bicycle path.

The plaintiff noticed the vehicle immediately and applied the brakes but was unable to prevent the collision, and sustained leg injuries.

Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries sustained in the accident

The defendants argued that the plaintiff had been traveling on the shared pedestrian and bicycle path in the wrong direction and at an excessive speed. They further maintained that e-scooter riders are subject to a general duty to yield and that the plaintiff had therefore violated the first defendant’s right of way.

The court of first instance partially upheld the claim. It rejected the first defendant’s asserted right of way and held that the plaintiff was entitled to use the shared pedestrian and bicycle path. The prohibition under Section 8(4)(1) of the Austrian Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrsordnung, hereinafter StVO) against endangering or obstructing traffic also applies to the protection of e-scooter riders. However, Section 88b(3) of the StVO does not impose a general duty to yield.

OGH: No right of way for the passenger vehicle

The OGH dismissed the defendants’ appeal, holding that the version of Section 88b of the StVO in effect on the date of the accident was determinative.

The entrance to the private parking lot does not constitute a junction within the meaning of Section 19 of the StVO; consequently, the first defendant had no right of way. The plaintiff was permitted to use the shared pedestrian and bicycle path in the direction in which they were travelling.

The prohibition under Section 8(4)(1) of the StVO against endangering or obstructing traffic also protects e-scooter riders who are lawfully using a bicycle facility. Accordingly, the general duty to yield under Section 88b(3) of the StVO must be interpreted narrowly and consistently with its purpose; e-scooter riders must not be placed at a disadvantage compared with cyclists when using a bicycle facility lawfully.

The first defendant should have stopped before the shared pedestrian and bicycle path and could have seen the plaintiff. Because the first defendant nevertheless obstructed the plaintiff’s path, they are liable for the consequences of the accident. The plaintiff was not required to adjust their speed to accommodate an obstacle that appeared unexpectedly in their path.

OGH 2Ob 73/26p (28 July 2026)