Formal and Informal Defenses in Bicycle Crash Claims

The evolution of bicycle crash negligence defenses is one reason the plaintiffs’ winning percentage in civil claims has plummeted since the 1990s. As late as the early 1990s, even mediocre lawyers could obtain maximum compensation in these matters. After a cursory investigation, a lawyer made a “take it or leave it” settlement offer. Because a trial was so risky, the insurance company almost always took that offer.

Now, the tables have completely turned. The insurance company makes a low ball offer and basically dares the victim to challenge it. So, only the best Carlsbad bicycle accident lawyer can obtain maximum compensation in a bicycle accident case. This compensation usually includes money for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Victims who partner with inexperienced lawyers who aren’t fully prepared to refute formal and informal defenses basically leave settlement money on the table.

The Comparative Fault Defense

This defense shifts blame for an accident from the tortfeasor (negligent driver) to the victim. It could apply in almost any situation, and often applies in intersection vehicle/bicycle crashes.

To maintain forward momentum, most cyclists slow down at stop signs, but they don’t come to a complete stop. Therefore, insurance company lawyers often maintain that the victim “ran” the stop sign and thereby caused the crash.

This approach discounts the tortfeasor’s negligence, which was usually operator impairment. Fatigue is a good example. Driving after eighteen consecutive awake hours, which is the equivalent of a full day at the office and running a few post-work errands, is like driving with a .05 BAC level. That’s above the legal limit for many California drivers.

A good Carlsbad personal injury lawyer uses facts and the law to blunt the comparative fault defense.

Many jurors don’t fully understand the effects of fatigue on drivers. A lawyer must use evidence to explain these effects, such as slow reaction time and poor judgment, without mansplaining.

Furthermore, California is a pure comparative fault state. Even if the victim was 99 percent responsible for a wreck, the tortfeasor is liable for a proportionate share of damages.

The Bicycle Helmet Defense

California, like most states, doesn’t have a universal bicycle helmet law. In fact, only riders under 18 are legally required to wear helmets in the Golden State.

Nevertheless, the lack of a bicycle helmet could be a factor in the damages awarded in a case. If the victim wasn’t wearing a helmet, the insurance company can blame the victim for his/her own injuries.

At least, the insurance company can try to shift the blame. Thin plastic bicycle helmets don’t protect riders from head injuries in high-speed collisions. That’s especially true since many head injuries are motion-related. When riders fall off their bikes, their brains slam against their skulls. So, they’ll most likely sustain head injuries whether they wear protective headgear or not.

Additionally, bicycle helmets have the opposite effect in many cases. Subconsciously, drivers believe riders who wear helmets can survive collisions. Therefore, they drive even more aggressively around bicyclists. In short, bicycle helmets often hurt more than they help.

Contact a Dedicated San Diego County Lawyer

Injury victims are entitled to substantial compensation. For a confidential consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer in San Marcos, contact the Pursley Law Firm. We routinely handle matters throughout the Golden State.

Source:

reuters.com/article/world/stunning-drop-in-federal-plaintiffs-win-rate-is-complete-mystery-new-study-idUSKBN19J2MA/