Incidents including injury and death, as well as public nuisance have given rise to strong opinion. In some ways addressing reputational risks can be more challenging to deal with as they ultimately hinge on public perception and community trust. Although an emotive issue, the liability concerns around e-scooter hire and private use are very similar to other exposures relating to local government infrastructure.
Recent incidents, including a fatality in an e-scooter crash have since prompted the WA government to establish a parliamentary inquiry into e-ridable safety. The inquiry will examine injury data, usage trends, and technological solutions to improve safety, as well as consider tougher penalties and restrictions for their misuse.
Looking at the multitude of associated risks and the growing number of recent incidents we’ll consider the key areas, particularly asset management and contract risk, that members should be mindful of. Reputational risk is another area members should consider with regards to e-scooter usage, particularly scooters for hire.
Congratulations to the Shire of Yilgarn who were award their Tier 3 Silver diligence in Safety Award. James Sheridan, CEO LGIS and Christ Gilmour, Risk Specialist – Regional visited the Shire on Tuesday 26 February to meet the Yilgarn team and present the award.
Stopping income compensation payments can be a tricky matter for LGIS members to determine. We’re aware there’s a growing number of local governments that have stopped payment when they shouldn’t have, leading to a large back pay bill and potential $10,000 fine from WorkCover WA.
Stopping income compensation payments can be a tricky matter for LGIS members to determine. We’re aware there’s a growing number of local governments that have stopped payment when they shouldn’t have, leading to a large back pay bill and potential $10,000 fine from WorkCover WA.
E-scooter riders are simply another type of user for shared pathways. Members should give them the same consideration that they give to any other user such as cyclists or pedestrians. Although private e-scooters can travel at high speed which may compound hazards. All path users have an individual duty of care for their own safety and should take reasonable precautions to keep themselves safe whilst using a shared pathway. From a local government perspective there is a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that shared pathways are safe for all users. In practice this includes:
Where these steps are not taken, and a user suffers an injury, the local government may be liable.
This is a significant issue for the sector as almost two-thirds of liability claims are related to footpaths, roads, or trees. Our largest claims have come from a failure to maintain and document the management of infrastructure.
The interaction of pedestrians and other users is particularly important given people of all ages are allowed to ride on WA footpaths, unless the path is otherwise signed. There is no doubt sharing paths provide many benefits to the community but there are several issues that need to be considered when planning and designing new paths as well as retrofitting paths to accommodate a shared facility.
Some of the basic design criteria for shared paths include:
Where a decision is made to restrict users of the path to pedestrians only, i.e. exclude cyclists, consideration is needed on how this restriction will be clearly communicated to all path users. For example, the provision of signage, markings and warnings.
The rapid adoption of e-rideables (including scooters and bicycles) is a consideration, especially since older infrastructure was not developed with them in mind.
These devices are an increasingly prominent feature on member path networks and present new challenges in relation to people’s attitudes and behaviours, particularly in the absence of clear and enforced regulation. Like traditional wheeled devices, e-rideables present a risk of injury to the rider as well as other path users. With their potential power, ability to speed and combined with their relatively small wheels, there is the chance path features or indeed defects that would otherwise be insignificant to other path users may be problematic to e-ridable users.
Factors such as the speed and power of these devices are governed under the Road Traffic Code WA (2000) with enforcement under the purview of WA Police. From a member risk point of view, path design considerations to accommodate these devices are unlikely to be a reasonable obligation of local government at this time. However, given the spate of e-rideable incidents at the time of writing this article, it remains to be seen if further legislative changes are made in this environment. Whether such changes could affect local government members is a matter for review at that time.
There are documents available to guide the design of paths that are intended to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists (e.g. shared paths). For example:
If the decision has been made to restrict path usage, such as a cyclist only path, then this should also be clearly signposted.
LGIS has two key resources to support members in managing their footpaths and reducing liability – the Footpath Risk Guide and Continuous Improvement Program. In addition, where new infrastructure is being developed or there is an area of particular concern our liability risk team is available to provide advice.
Hire services are an excellent way to support micro-mobility in urban areas. The ability to hire e-scooters has gained popularity across Australia and cities around the world.
They offer convenience to tourists and locals alike making it easy to explore urban areas.
To deliver this service a provider will enter into an agreement with a local government, providing them with permission to set up hire hubs and for e-scooters to be used within the area. This relationship may be outlined in a contract and it’s vital that local governments are aware of how risks are apportioned within any agreed settlement.
Typically, the third-party provider should carry responsibility to ensure that equipment is well kept, has speed control/ restrictions in place, and that users are provided with guidance on usage as well as applicable laws. Contracts, however, may vary and members should be alert to any risk transfer.
A contract is the main tool to regulate the relationship between a local government and the service provider. Members should aim to avoid accepting risks that they cannot control, for example: indemnities, limitation of liability, and liquidated damages clauses are important tools to allocate risks under a contract. Similarly, insurance clauses ensure that a party that caused a loss will have the financial ability to offer compensation.
For each contract, the local government should identify the risks involved, assess them (likelihood and consequences), and distribute the risks to the party that can best manage them. Remember – no contract is risk free, and local governments are usually in a position of having to accept some risks; however, it’s crucial to understand the consequence
To better understand the risks, the following points should be considered before a contrast is signed:
Importantly members should not sign a contract if they have any concerns. Time and again LGIS receives requests to review a contract after it has been signed. At this point all parties have accepted the term of the contract and they cannot be renegotiated.
LGIS can review your contracts if you’d like a professional second opinion. We’ve also created the Guide to Contract Risk which outlines many of the areas that should be considered when entering any contract.
E-Scooter hire raises a range of unique risks for the local governments that choose to allow them to operate in their area. A risk-based decision-making approach should be used when considering whether to allow or continue the delivery of e-scooter hire. As always with any local government project, community consultation will be an important part of the evaluation process.
The following is not a definitive list of reputational risks but provides some areas to think about. Risk will be individual to the circumstances of each local government and their community. Whatever the case controls should address and reduce the risks identified.
Safety concerns: E-scooter accidents can lead to injuries or fatalities, raising concerns about public safety. If local governments are perceived as not adequately addressing safety measures, such as proper infrastructure or regulations, it may damage their reputation.
Infrastructure strain: The introduction of e-scooters may strain existing infrastructure, such as footpaths and bike lanes. If local governments fail to maintain or improve infrastructure to accommodate e-scooter use, it can lead to public dissatisfaction.
Regulatory compliance: As part of contract management the public may perceive that the local government has a role in ensuring that e-scooter companies follow local regulations. If there are perceived lapses in enforcement or oversight, it can lead to reputational damage and public distrust.
Public nuisance: Improperly parked e-scooters can create clutter and obstruct pedestrian pathways, leading to complaints from residents. If local governments are seen as unable to manage this issue effectively, it can harm their reputation. Community engagement: If local governments do not engage with the community about the introduction of e-scooter hire, they may face backlash from residents who feel their opinions were not considered. This can lead to reputational harm.
Equity and accessibility: E-scooter programs may not be accessible to all community members, particularly those with disabilities or those living in underserved areas. If local governments are perceived as promoting inequitable access, it can damage their reputation. Vandalism and misuse: E-scooters can be subject to vandalism or misuse, leading to increased costs for local governments and potential safety hazards. If these issues are not managed effectively, it can reflect poorly on local governance.
Public perception of local government: The decision to allow e-scooter hire can be polarising. If a significant portion of the community opposes the initiative, local governments may face reputational risks related to public belief and trust.
Media coverage: Negative media coverage related to accidents, misuse, or community dissatisfaction can amplify reputational risks.
A woman sued the City of Joondalup after crashing her electric scooter into a fence post on a public pathway. The case was dismissed by the District Court of WA.
Kirstin McMillan Leibbrandt filed a civil negligence claim against the council following a 2021 incident in the northern suburb of Craigie, where she suffered injuries while riding an e-scooter on a shared dual-lane pathway.
The pathway was busy in both directions and Mrs Leibbrandt heard a bicycle bell behind her. She moved to the left of the path, so that her scooter was on the far edge of the path. She struck a timber fence post on the side of the path, fell and sustained personal injuries.
In her ruling the District Court Judge considered the following legal questions:
The plaintiff alleged that the positioning and spacing of fence posts along the pathway posed a foreseeable hazard. They referred to the Austroads Ltd, Guide to Road Design, particularly the section which relates to paths for walking and cycling. They alleged that the City had been negligent as the post was positioned at 0.26 m parallel to the path, instead of the 0.3 m as stated in guidelines.
In considering this the judge saw images of the path in question and found that it was straight and wide. She concluded that a reasonable person taking care for their own safety would’ve have seen the posts and have been able to avoid them. She also noted the shared path was sufficiently wide and that a user would have no need to go to the far edge of the path and near the pole.
The judge noted that the post in question did pose a hazard and that it could have been fixed.
However, she acknowledged that on balance given that the City is responsible for nearly 1,000 km of shared pathways that it would be unreasonable for all posts on pathways to be measured and then fixed if an issue was found.
Importantly, the City had good records and a search of over 1 million reports for the related area, from 2022 to 2025, found no other record of an incident or hazard at the location. This reinforced that the path was relatively safe for all users who took reasonable care for their own safety while using the infrastructure.
The reliability of the plaintiff was also called into question as she had provided varying evidence at different points on the amount of alcohol consumed before riding the e-scooter, and the speed at which she was travelling when the accident occurred.
This is an important case for members to consider as it highlights key liability considerations.
LGIS has a range of services and resources to support members in managing their contractual and liability risks. Members should first turn to the risk guides on contracts and footpaths, as well as the Continuous Improvement Programme. Our team can also provide advice and guidance on individual contracts. The liability risk team can provide support in the development of new assets or conduct a liability assessment on existing ones.
This year marks the significant milestone of the 30th anniversary of LGIS. It’s an opportunity to reflect on the remarkable journey we have undertaken together over the past three decades. Since our founding in 1995, LGIS has evolved from a practical response to emerging risks into a pioneering mutual scheme that proudly serves the diverse needs of Western Australia’s local governments.
1 July 2025 marked an historic moment for LGIS, on the same day 30 years ago that the Scheme launched. A lot has changed over that time, but the core purpose remains – local governments working together through a mutual to protect their people, organisations and communities.
Research from the BMC Public Health Journal conducted in 2024 indicated that 61.75% of truck drivers develop some form of musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) during their career. This alarming statistic will almost certainly be applicable to the wide range of roles undertaken by the local government sector throughout WA.
