State v. Gayman

Operators of motor assisted scooters are not generally subject to the provisions of the vehicle code that apply to motor vehicles and their operators because motor assisted scooters are not physically capable of operating in the same manner as a motor vehicle, and the vehicle code reflects that distinction.

Defendant was cited for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer after driving her electric scooter home without a helmet. Defendant appealed the conviction and assigned error to the trial court’s failure to render a judgment of acquittal sua sponte. On appeal, Defendant contends that she was not operating a “motor vehicle” for purposes of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A). “Operators of motor assisted scooters are not generally subject to the provisions of the vehicle code that apply to motor vehicles and their operators because motor assisted scooters are not physically capable of operating in the same manner as a motor vehicle, and the vehicle code reflects that distinction.” The Court determined that the trial court erred in entering the judgment against Defendant. The Court reasoned that because Defendant’s “mobility scooter” which was incapable of operating above 23 miles per an hour, the scooter was not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of ORS 811.540(1)(b)(A). Reversed.