E-Bike Accident Lawsuits: The Rising Tide of Personal Injury Claims

Reading Time:

7

minutes

Posted: 18th September 2025

Leah Baker

Last updated 22nd September 2025

E-Bike Accident Lawsuits: The Rising Tide of Personal Injury Claims

The rapid rise of electric bicycles, or e-bikes, represents not only a transformation in modern transportation but also a developing frontier in liability law. Once regarded as a recreational novelty, e-bikes have quickly become a global phenomenon, reshaping commuting patterns and urban infrastructure.

Yet the pace of this growth has outstripped both regulatory oversight and consumer protection frameworks. Courts are now seeing a surge of personal injury and wrongful death claims that test the boundaries of product liability, negligence, and marketplace responsibility.

These lawsuits are less about isolated defects and more about establishing accountability in a marketplace where innovation often moves faster than the law.

The E-Bike Boom: A Statistical Reality

To understand the legal battles, one must first grasp the sheer scale of the e-bike market's expansion. Once a curiosity, e-bikes are now a mainstream mode of transportation.

According to industry reports, U.S. sales surged by over 240% between 2019 and 2021, far outpacing the growth of traditional bicycles. Projections indicate that the number of e-bikes sold annually in the U.S. could reach 6.4 million units by 2025.

This growth is driven by affordability, convenience, and a push for eco-friendly alternatives to cars, with a significant portion of riders using them for daily commutes and errands.

Yet, as more e-bikes hit the streets, so do the injury statistics. Data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reveals a parallel rise in accidents, with e-bike-related emergency room visits increasing by 21% from 2021 to 2022.

While this data includes all ages, a concerning trend has emerged, particularly with pediatric injuries. Studies have found that children involved in e-bike accidents have a higher rate of hospitalization and more severe injuries, such as concussions and internal trauma, compared to those injured on pedal bikes.

This is often attributed to the higher speeds of e-bikes and the fact that young riders may not be wearing helmets. This confluence of rapid market growth and rising injury rates sets the stage for the pivotal legal cases now making headlines.

The Steinsapir Family and the Wrongful Death of Molly

On January 31, 2021, a downhill ride on a RadRunner electric bike turned into a catastrophic tragedy for 12-year-old Molly Steinsapir. As the bike picked up speed, her 11-year-old friend, who was piloting the bike, struggled to brake.

The rear brake allegedly failed to slow the bike, while the front brake caused the wheel to wobble uncontrollably, throwing both girls to the pavement. Molly sustained a traumatic brain injury and died 16 days later.

Her parents, both attorneys, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes, the manufacturer, and Giro Sport Design, the helmet maker. Their complaint outlines a series of allegations that strike at the heart of modern product liability law.

Design Flaws and Allegations of Negligence: The lawsuit alleges the RadRunner's design was inherently flawed, specifically citing a combination of a quick-release front wheel and disc brakes that posed a known hazard. Plaintiffs argue that the design, while intended for easy portability, was unstable and prone to failure, particularly under the stress of a downhill descent. They contend that the company was aware of similar incidents and industry-wide recalls related to this design but failed to act.
Inadequate Warnings and Marketing Practices: The plaintiffs' attorneys also focus on the marketing and warnings. They allege that Rad Power Bikes marketed the e-bikes as family-friendly, encouraging their use by minors, despite the potential dangers. The lawsuit points out that the owner's manual for the bike contained a small-print warning that the model should only be ridden by individuals at least 18 years old. Plaintiffs argue that this was an inadequate warning for a product aggressively marketed to families and that the company had a heightened duty to warn about the dangers of child passengers.

The Defense Perspective: Manufacturers and Retailers Respond

The legal battle in the Steinsapir case and others like it is not one-sided. Manufacturers and retailers have mounted robust defenses that reflect a complex web of liability.

In response to the Steinsapir family’s lawsuit, Rad Power Bikes filed a cross-complaint against the parents of the surviving rider, arguing that they were the ones actively and primarily responsible for the accident.

Rad Power Bikes' Defense: While Rad Power Bikes has largely refrained from commenting publicly on the specific details of the pending litigation, court documents and legal filings reveal their strategy. The company’s core argument is that the fault lies with user error and the failure of the bike's owners to follow the instructions in the manual. They contend that any wrongdoing on their part was "passive" and secondary to the "active and primary" liabilities of the parents who allowed an underage rider to operate the bike with a passenger. This defense seeks to shift responsibility away from the manufacturer and onto the end-user, a common tactic in product liability cases.
The Helmets' Role: The lawsuit also names Giro Sport Design and its parent company, Vista Outdoor, alleging that the helmet Molly was wearing failed to provide adequate protection. This part of the case introduces a new legal dimension, forcing courts to consider what constitutes a "safe" product and whether manufacturers can be held liable when an injury occurs despite a safety device being used.

The Lewis Lawsuit and the Battle for Retailer Accountability

Just as the Steinsapir case made headlines, another catastrophic injury lawsuit emerged—this one targeting Amazon. On December 30, 2024, Robert Lewis was riding a foldable e-bike purchased from Amazon when the handlebar locking system failed, collapsing mid-ride. The incident left him paraplegic.

Lewis's family has sued both Actbest Technology Inc., the e-bike’s manufacturer, and Amazon.com Inc., arguing that Amazon is not merely a neutral platform but an integral part of the supply chain.

This lawsuit is a perfect example of a new and evolving area of law: retailer responsibility in the age of e-commerce.

The "Neutral Marketplace" Defense: Amazon has long defended itself from product liability lawsuits by arguing that it is a neutral "service provider," not a seller or distributor. According to this defense, it merely facilitates a transaction between a third-party seller and a consumer and should not be held liable for a product it did not manufacture or directly sell. This argument has been successful in some courts but is now facing a new wave of legal scrutiny.
The Evolving Legal Standard: Plaintiffs' attorneys, like those in the Lewis case, are increasingly challenging this defense. They argue that Amazon’s role as the product's financial transactor, packager, and shipper makes it a direct link in the chain of commerce. They contend that Amazon's practices—such as its "Fulfillment by Amazon" service—place it squarely between the buyer and seller, making it a key player in the "producing and marketing enterprise" of the product. The Lewis complaint specifically alleges that Amazon continued to sell the e-bike model despite prior consumer complaints about similar defects, highlighting a failure to monitor and remove dangerous products. This echoes a broader legal trend where courts are rejecting the "marketplace" defense and holding platforms like Amazon to the same standards as traditional brick-and-mortar retailers.

Navigating the Legal Frontier: A Deeper Look at the Law

These cases are not isolated incidents; they serve as test cases for how personal injury law adapts to new technologies. The legal strategies involved blend traditional negligence claims with modern arguments about online commerce and consumer protection.

The Manufacturer's Duty of Care

A central legal question in both cases is the duty of care owed by manufacturers. This principle dictates that a company must exercise a reasonable level of care to prevent foreseeable harm to its consumers. In the context of e-bikes, this raises pressing questions:

Foreseeability: Could the manufacturers have foreseen that a child would ride a bike with a passenger, or that a quick-release front wheel would fail on a heavy e-bike? Plaintiffs argue that these are foreseeable scenarios that should have been addressed through safer design or explicit, prominent warnings.
Adequate Warnings: What constitutes an "adequate" warning? A small-print statement in a 50-page manual is a far cry from a bold, prominent sticker on the bike itself. This legal argument centers on whether the warning was reasonably likely to reach and be understood by the consumer, especially a parent purchasing a bike for a child.

Damages: The Cost of Catastrophe

In both the Steinsapir and Lewis cases, the plaintiffs are seeking significant damages to account for their immeasurable losses. The legal framework for calculating these damages is complex and multi-faceted.

Economic Damages: These are quantifiable financial losses. In the Steinsapir case, they include all of Molly's medical bills, funeral expenses, and the potential future economic support she would have provided to her parents. For Robert Lewis, this includes his extensive lifelong medical care, lost wages, and the cost of home modifications and other needs related to his paralysis.
Non-Economic Damages: These are intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of companionship or enjoyment of life. No amount of money can truly compensate a family for the loss of a child or an individual for the loss of their physical abilities. The legal system, however, attempts to place a monetary value on these profound losses.
Punitive Damages: In some cases, plaintiffs may seek punitive damages. These are not meant to compensate the victim but rather to punish the defendant for particularly reckless or egregious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future. To win punitive damages, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with a "conscious disregard" for public safety. In the e-bike lawsuits, this could apply if a jury finds that a company was aware of a dangerous defect but chose to continue selling the product without a recall or proper warnings.

Liability in the Age of Innovation

The current wave of e-bike litigation serves as a bellwether for the future of consumer protection. These cases underscore the complex legal and ethical questions that emerge when technological innovation advances more quickly than the regulatory framework meant to safeguard the public.

Their outcomes may help define the contours of liability in a digital-first economy, compelling both manufacturers and online platforms to place safety and accountability at the forefront of their business models.

As e-bikes become further integrated into daily life, the demands on the legal system to keep pace will intensify.

For practitioners and policymakers alike, these lawsuits are a reminder that the law must continually evolve to balance innovation with responsibility, ensuring that progress in transportation does not come at the expense of public safety.