Houston Uber Scooter Accidents: New 2026 Rules

The proliferation of micro-mobility devices has undeniably reshaped urban transportation, and Houston is no exception. With electric scooters from services like Uber becoming a common sight on city streets, questions surrounding liability for accidents, particularly those stemming from road hazards, have grown increasingly complex. A recent legislative amendment in Texas has altered the framework for how such claims are adjudicated, specifically impacting individuals injured while riding an Uber scooter in Houston due to a road hazard liability.

Understanding House Bill 3590 and Its Impact

Effective January 1, 2026, House Bill 3590 has significantly amended Chapter 75 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a statute governing the liability of governmental units for certain premises defects. This legislative change introduces a more stringent standard for proving liability against public entities in cases involving road hazards, directly affecting those injured while operating micro-mobility devices such as an Uber scooter.

Previously, claims against governmental entities for premises defects, which can include road hazards, often hinged on whether the entity had “actual or constructive knowledge” of the dangerous condition. Constructive knowledge meant that the entity should have known about the hazard through reasonable diligence. House Bill 3590, however, largely removes the “constructive knowledge” standard for certain types of premises defects, particularly those involving public roadways and thoroughfares. The new language in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 75.002 now emphasizes the requirement of actual knowledge of the specific hazard by the governmental unit. More than that, it requires proof that the entity acted with deliberate indifference to the safety of others.

What does this mean for someone injured on an Uber scooter in Houston? It means that simply proving a pothole existed, or that a street light was out, may no longer be enough. You must now demonstrate that the City of Houston, Harris County, or the relevant state agency (like the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)) knew about that specific pothole or specific non-functioning light and chose to do nothing about it, demonstrating a conscious disregard for public safety. This is a higher bar to clear, making these cases more challenging.

Who is Affected by This Change?

This legislative shift primarily affects individuals who sustain injuries while riding an Uber scooter or similar micro-mobility device on public roads, sidewalks, or other areas maintained by governmental entities within Houston and across Texas. This includes injuries resulting from:

• Potholes and uneven pavement: Common culprits for scooter accidents.
• Missing or damaged manhole covers: A significant hazard for small wheels.
• Inadequate lighting: Especially in areas like downtown Houston or the Museum District where scooter usage is high at night.
• Unmarked construction zones: Where debris or sudden drops can cause falls.
• Defective storm grates: Another hazard that can trap scooter wheels.

The change does not, however, directly alter the liability standards for private entities. If your injury occurred on private property, such as a parking lot owned by a business, or was caused by a hazard created by a private construction company working on a public road under contract, the standard negligence principles would generally still apply. In such scenarios, you would typically need to prove that the private entity failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the property or performing their work, and that this failure led to your injury. This distinction is important and often overlooked by those unfamiliar with personal injury law.

The New Standard: Actual Knowledge and Deliberate Indifference

To successfully pursue a claim against a public entity for a road hazard after January 1, 2026, an injured party must now provide compelling evidence of two key elements: actual knowledge and deliberate indifference.

Actual knowledge means the governmental entity must have had direct, subjective awareness of the specific dangerous condition. This is not about what they should have known, but what they did know. Examples of evidence that could establish actual knowledge include:

• Prior written complaints filed with the city’s 311 service or relevant department about the exact hazard.
• Internal memos or repair requests within the governmental agency documenting the hazard.
• Witness testimony from government employees who observed the hazard and reported it internally.
• Evidence of previous accidents at the exact same location due to the same hazard, known to the entity.

Proving this can be an uphill battle, requiring extensive discovery and often subpoenas for internal records. It’s not enough to show that the city knew there were potholes generally in Houston. You must show they knew about that specific pothole on Main Street near Discovery Green.

Beyond actual knowledge, claimants must also demonstrate deliberate indifference. This means the governmental entity, despite having actual knowledge of the hazard, consciously disregarded an extreme risk to the safety of others. It implies a culpable mental state, going beyond mere negligence. It is a very high bar. For instance, if the City of Houston received multiple reports about a large, dangerous pothole on a busy street, had the resources to fix it, but intentionally chose not to for an extended period, leading to an accident, that might constitute deliberate indifference. Simply being slow to repair a known hazard might not be enough. The inaction must be intentional and reckless. This is where many cases will falter without strong legal representation.

Specific Steps for Injured Individuals

Given these heightened requirements, individuals injured while riding an Uber scooter in Houston due to a road hazard must take immediate and precise steps to protect their potential claim.

1. Document Everything at the Scene: If physically able, take numerous photographs and videos of the accident scene. Capture the specific road hazard from multiple angles, showing its size, depth, and location. Include landmarks, street signs, and crosswalks to clearly identify the exact spot. Document any visible damage to the Uber scooter and your injuries. This visual evidence is invaluable for establishing the existence and nature of the hazard.

2. Identify Witnesses: Obtain contact information for anyone who saw the accident or observed the road hazard prior to your fall. Their testimony can corroborate your account and potentially provide evidence of the governmental entity’s knowledge of the hazard.

3. Seek Immediate Medical Attention: Your health is paramount. Even if injuries seem minor, visit an urgent care facility or emergency room. This creates an official medical record of your injuries, which is critical for any personal injury claim. Delays in seeking treatment can be used by defense attorneys to argue that your injuries were not severe or were not caused by the accident.

4. File a Formal Complaint with the Relevant Authority: Report the road hazard to the City of Houston’s 311 service or the appropriate county/state agency. While this report alone may not prove actual knowledge prior to your accident, it establishes a record that the hazard exists and can be important if others are injured later. Keep a record of the complaint number and date.

5. Preserve the Uber Scooter Data: Uber’s app often logs ride data, including location and speed. This information can be vital in reconstructing the accident. Understand how to access or request this data.

6. Consult with a Personal Injury Attorney: This is perhaps the most critical step. An attorney specializing in premises liability and personal injury cases will understand the nuances of House Bill 3590 and the stringent requirements for governmental liability. They can help investigate the governmental entity’s knowledge of the hazard, gather necessary evidence, and navigate the complex legal process. Attempting to manage such a claim independently against a well-resourced governmental unit is rarely successful under these new rules.

Working through the Legal Field: A Lawyer’s Perspective

From a legal practitioner’s standpoint, these amendments represent a significant challenge for plaintiffs. The intent of the legislature was clearly to limit the liability exposure of governmental entities, and they have largely succeeded in creating a higher evidentiary burden. We anticipate a greater focus on pre-suit investigation to unearth evidence of actual knowledge and deliberate indifference, which often means digging through public records requests and interviewing former or current city employees. This isn’t a process for the faint of heart, nor for those without a deep understanding of discovery procedures.

The distinction between public and private entities here is paramount. If you’re riding an Uber scooter down a street in the Heights and hit a pothole, your claim against the City of Houston is now much harder. But if that pothole was created by a private utility company that left an excavation site improperly restored, your claim against that utility company operates under a different, less demanding standard. Determining the responsible party and their exact legal status is often the first, and most complex, hurdle in these cases. We often find ourselves researching property deeds, public works contracts, and maintenance schedules just to identify the correct defendant.

It’s also worth noting that the City of Houston, like other governmental units, generally enjoys sovereign immunity unless that immunity is expressly waived by statute. The Texas Tort Claims Act (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 101) provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for certain types of claims, including premises defects. House Bill 3590 effectively narrows this waiver even further for road hazards, reinforcing the need for careful case preparation. We counsel clients that these cases require patience and a willingness to engage in thorough, sometimes protracted, investigation.

Conclusion

The changes brought by House Bill 3590 to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 75 significantly alter the field for road hazard liability claims involving Uber scooters in Houston against governmental entities. Injured individuals must now meet a higher evidentiary standard, proving actual knowledge and deliberate indifference. Consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney immediately after an accident is essential to understand your rights and navigate this complex legal framework effectively.