Motorized scooter vendor brought action against city, challenging validity of ordinances which prohibited motorized scooter rentals.
The Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of city. Vendor appealed.
The District Court of Appeal held that:
- Ordinances were not arbitrary or unreasonable, and
- State traffic statute did not impliedly preempt ordinances.
Municipal ordinances which prohibited night rentals of motorized scooters, and which imposed a general prohibition against all motorized scooter rentals after a certain date, were not arbitrary or unreasonable for only prohibiting rental rather than operation of scooters, and therefore ordinances were valid pursuant to rational basis analysis; ordinances were enacted based on findings that sheer volume of daily scooter rentals and often reckless operation of scooters had placed an impracticable strain on city resources, negatively impacted tourist experience, and posed safety risks, and it was reasonable to conclude that scooter owners would be more experienced and safe than one-time renters.
State traffic statute did not impliedly preempt municipal ordinances which prohibited night rentals of motorized scooters, and which prohibited all motorized scooter rentals after a certain date, even though statute precluded passage of any conflicting city ordinances as well as ordinances on traffic matters absent authorization; ordinances did not regulate the method of scooter driving or apply penalties for improper scooter driving in conflict with state traffic statute, and statute provided for a local government’s reasonable exercise of police powers to prohibit incompatible traffic from heavily traveled streets.