CALL 916-777-7777
Youtube Facebook-f X-twitter Linkedin-in

Navigating Motorcycle Collision Cases

Posted on behalf of Arnold Law Firm in
motorcycle collision cases

Motorcycle Collision Cases: How to Navigate Liability and Overcome Juror Bias

Motorcycle accidents often result in severe injuries or fatalities, making these cases particularly challenging in both the legal arena and in the court of public opinion. Motorcyclists are 28 times more likely to die and four times more likely to be injured in collisions than those in cars or trucks. Despite these statistics, jurors may hold biases that unjustly attribute blame to motorcyclists simply for their choice of vehicle. This blog will explore how attorneys can effectively navigate these cases by understanding liability and addressing juror bias.

The Bias Against Motorcyclists: A Legal Hurdle

Motorcyclists frequently face prejudice in courtrooms. A study revealed that some jurors believe motorcyclists “should expect to get injured” just by choosing to ride. This mindset can lead to unfair comparative liability judgments, where motorcyclists are blamed without supporting evidence. As legal advocates, addressing these biases head-on is crucial and ensuring that the jury bases its decisions on facts rather than preconceived notions.

Legal Rights and Responsibilities: What the Law Says About Motorcyclists

Motorcyclists have specific legal rights and responsibilities on the road, many of which are outlined in the California Vehicle Code. For instance, Vehicle Code Section 21658.1 legalizes lane splitting, which is defined as riding a motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane. Commonly known as lane sharing or filtering, this practice is legal in California when done safely. Attorneys should be well-versed in these legal provisions to defend motorcyclists effectively.

Safe Lane Splitting: Guidelines Every Rider Should Follow

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) offers guidelines for safe lane splitting, which are crucial for motorcyclists to follow and for attorneys to understand. Key recommendations include:
  • Maintaining a speed differential of no more than 10 miles per hour between the motorcycle and surrounding traffic.
  • Preferably splitting between the #1 and #2 lanes, where it is generally safer.
  • Considering environmental factors such as lane width, vehicle size, and lighting conditions.

Educating Other Drivers: A Key to Safer Roads

To prevent accidents, it’s essential to educate other drivers about their responsibilities when sharing the road with motorcyclists. Important rules include:
  • Lane splitting by motorcycles is legal in California and should not be discouraged by motorists.
  • Blocking or impeding a motorcyclist is illegal and can lead to severe penalties.
  • Drivers should avoid distractions, check mirrors and blind spots, and always signal intentions before changing lanes or merging.

Leveraging these 4 California Vehicle Codes in Legal Proceedings

Citing the California Vehicle Code during a trial can significantly strengthen a case. Relevant sections include:
  • §21658: Requires vehicles to stay within a single lane unless it is safe to change lanes.
  • §21703: Prohibits following another vehicle too closely, considering traffic and road conditions.
  • §22107: Mandates that vehicles must turn only when it is safe and after giving an appropriate signal.
  • §23123: Bans the use of handheld phones while driving.

The Power of Judicial Notice in Motorcycle Collision Cases

Judicial notice is a valuable tool in these cases. According to California Evidence Code Section 451, courts must take judicial notice of public statutory laws. When a judge cites relevant Vehicle Code sections, it can add significant weight to the arguments presented and reinforce the evidence before the jury. Attorneys should not hesitate to use this strategy to emphasize the legality and rights of motorcyclists.

Debunking Comparative Fault Arguments

Motorcyclists often face claims of comparative fault, particularly regarding their speed and maneuverability. It’s essential to counter these arguments by demonstrating the motorcyclist’s adherence to safety protocols and highlighting the defendant’s failure to follow traffic laws. By presenting clear evidence and expert testimony, attorneys can effectively challenge these unfounded claims.

Conclusion: Advocating for Justice in Motorcycle Collision Cases

Motorcycle collision cases require a thorough understanding of both the law and the biases that motorcyclists may face. By educating jurors, leveraging the California Vehicle Code, and using judicial notice effectively, attorneys can advocate for the rights of motorcyclists and help secure fair outcomes for their clients. For more information or legal assistance, visit The Arnold Law Firm or call (916) 777-7777. Our team is dedicated to fighting for the rights of motorcyclists and ensuring they receive the justice they deserve.

Settlement - $3,767,000

Truck Accident

A 20-year-old man who had been married for just 12 days left home on his way to work. He was driving on Pleasant Grove Road in Sutter County in the early morning when he came upon a slow-moving truck. As he pulled out to pass the truck, the truck driver turned left in front of him. The young man attempted to steer back into his lane but his vehicle struck an un-flagged piece of metal extending from the back of the truck. He died in the resulting crash.

Expert witnesses brought in by the Arnold Law Firm proved that the truck, owned and operated by a hauling firm, should never have been on the highway that morning. Specifically, the rear and side turn signals did not work and the rear-view mirror was in a poor state of adjustment at the time of the collision. As a result, the driver, who had failed to properly inspect the vehicle before setting out that morning, couldn’t see the young man’s vehicle as it attempted to pass.

The poor condition of the truck, its lack of maintenance and the manner in which it was operated were found to be substantial factors in causing the collision that killed the young man. The testimony also established that the man had been making a lawful pass at the lawful speed limit and acted reasonably when he attempted to avoid the collision.

The man’s 20-year-old widow was awarded $3,767,000.77, his parents were awarded $185,131 and the family was reimbursed $11,899 in funeral expenses. Though money is a poor substitute for a young man’s life, this verdict demonstrates that drivers who endanger the lives of others will be held accountable for their actions.