Comparative Fault and Motorcycle Crashes

Driver error, as opposed to motorcycle rider error, substantially causes over 90 percent of the motorcycle wrecks in California. However, driver error may not be the exclusive cause. In these cases, California’s comparative fault law could apply.

If the judge determines that the victim and tortfeasor (negligent driver) were jointly responsible for a crash, jurors must divide responsibility on a percentage basis, such as 80-20 or 60-40. California is a pure comparative fault state. Responsibility division only reduces the amount of damages (e.g. if Tom was 20 percent responsible for a motorcycle crash, he receives 80 percent of the damages awarded). Therefore, motorcycle crash victims are still entitled to compensation, regardless of their percentage of fault.

So, a Carlsbad personal injury lawyer has two chances to cripple the comparative fault defense. In a pretrial hearing, a Carlsbad personal injury lawyer can argue that the victim’s fault didn’t substantially contribute to the damages. At trial, a lawyer can make the same pitch to jurors, convincing them to divide fault in favor of the victim.

Pre-Wreck Comparative Fault

Driver impairment-related wrecks are rooted in pre-accident behavior. Drunk drivers are usually drunk before they get behind the wheel. The same principle applies to comparative fault and motorcycle wrecks, specifically with regard to helmet use.

If motorcycle crash victims don’t wear helmets, insurance company lawyers often blame these riders for their own head injuries.

That assertion is questionable. According to some studies, motorcycle helmets significantly reduce head injuries. According to others, the protection is negligible. According to others, helmets increase the risk of head injuries. Subconsciously, tortfeasors (negligent drivers) believe that helmeted riders can survive crashes. Therefore, these tortfeasors take unnecessary chances.

Additionally, insurance company lawyers cannot simply cite safety statistics and shift blame. Instead, they must introduce case-specific evidence. Usually, a doctor must testify that, if the victim wore a helmet, the victim would’ve walked away without a scratch. Lots of luck with that.

Moreover, California’s complex motorcycle helmet law/seat belt defense law comes into play. Cal. Vehicle Code § 27315 states that helmet non-use cannot be introduced as evidence of comparative fault. It’s only relevant to the amount of damages.

These damages usually include compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. A Carlsbad personal injury lawyer can obtain additional punitive damages in these matters as well.

Accident-Related Comparative Fault

Dangerous left turns cause a significant number of motorcycle wrecks. Usually, a tortfeasor turns left in front of an oncoming motorcycle. The comparative fault defense could apply in these cases, if the motorcycle rider was speeding.

Slight excessive speed usually isn’t enough to establish the defense in the aforementioned pretrial hearing. If Tom was speeding 5mph over the limit, his excessive speed most likely did not substantially contribute to the wreck. If Tom was speeding 15mph over the limit, the insurance company might have a decent substantial contribution argument.

An informal defense, the motorcycle prejudice, sometimes affects the comparative fault defense. Some jurors believe that motorcycle riders are thugs who ride recklessly. So, they often apply the comparative fault division based on little evidence. A Carlsbad personal injury lawyer must diffuse this defense to obtain maximum compensation.

Reach Out to a Dedicated San Diego County Lawyer

Injury victims are entitled to substantial compensation. For a confidential consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer in Carlsbad, contact the Pursley Law Firm. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.

Source:

crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812506