For those of you who are unaware of the potential complications and dynamics of fighting a motorcycle accident case, RussBrown.com motorcycle accident lawyer, Chuck Koro has prepared an examination of 3 motorcycle accident cases with details on how each case was handled according to the specific issues that arose in each case.
In order to resolve a case in your favor you have to show that the other party was at fault or at least mostly at fault. Unfortunately, sometimes it doesn’t matter if the other party was truly at fault if you can’t prove it or, in more pragmatic terms, if you can’t “sell” it to the insurance company or to a jury. That’s why in cases where the fault issue is disputed it is important to weigh the chances of success versus failure as the case unfolds. An experienced lawyer should be able to guide you accordingly. Here are a few examples.
In one case the motorcyclist, who was in the second lane from the left on the freeway, was passing the defendant, who was in the far left lane. The defendant turned right into the rider’s lane crushing his foot and breaking it. There were no independent witnesses and the police were not summoned. At the scene, the defendant apologized and offered to pay for the damage to the bike. He later claimed that he never left his lane and that it was the motorcyclist who ran into him.
Apparently, the fact that the defendant and his all-American-looking family were on their way to the airport for a family vacation and the rider, who had a pony tail and was on a Harley, played into the insurance company’s analysis that the defendant could carry the day. Without an independent witness this was a difficult case because if a jury were to believe both sides equally, the motorcyclist would lose because he has the burden of proof. To prevail, he has to tilt the scales of justice ever so slightly in his favor. A tie is a loss for the motorcyclist (plaintiff) and a win for the offending driver (defendant).
The case proceeded to binding arbitration before a retired judge and a verdict was rendered in favor of the motorcyclist for the full value of the case. During the pendency of the suit the decision was made to expend the resources and time to prosecute the case to conclusion. The decision in great part was made based on the sincerity of the motorcyclist (which was evident at his deposition) and the nature of his injuries and, in this particular case, justice won out.
In another situation as the case unfolded the fault issue got increasingly worse for the motorcyclist. The rider was on a residential street behind the defendant when she came to a dead stop. He stopped behind her and waited. She moved up somewhat and he moved up with her. She then stopped again and waited. He then sounded his horn and began to pass her on the left whereupon she suddenly turned left, without signaling, into her driveway. The motorcyclist went down and broke his foot.
The latter part of the incident was witnessed by the defendant’s neighbor and the neighbor’s friend, who both observed the events from the kitchen window in the home next to the defendant. The neighbor on the other side of the defendant observed the last few seconds of the incident as he turned the corner onto the street on his way home. Pre-litigation statements were taken and all three of these witnesses favored the defendant. They said that they did not see her stop and that the motorcyclist just became impatient. The problem with their versions was that none of them had a clear view of all of the events plus they were neighbors, which created the inference that they were biased. On the other hand, a fourth witness, who was directly behind the motorcyclist, and presumably saw everything, confirmed the rider’s version.
However, as the case proceeded into litigation and the depositions of all the witnesses were taken, the fault issue began to erode. The three neighbor witnesses all came across as sincere and articulate. The witness in favor of the motorcyclist didn’t give a stellar performance and he turned out to be a convicted felon. In California, where the case was venued, a felony conviction is sometimes admissible into evidence, which could affect the jury’s assessment of the witness’ credibility. Moreover, the witness did not remain at the scene, but came forward later, and none of the others remembered seeing him there even though it was a quiet residential street, which also further tainted his credibility. Eventually, the decision was made to settle for a nominal sum and, in retrospect, it was the right decision.
In one last example, cars were stopped in a single lane of traffic at a railroad crossing for a passing train. To the left was a painted median area delineated by solid double lines on each side. The motorcyclist slowly proceeded toward the front of the line to the left of the cars while sharing the lane. This occurred in California so his lane-sharing was legal. Suddenly, the offending driver, who was stopped in the line of traffic, became impatient and turned left to make a left turn or U-turn across the median area. She ran right into the motorcyclist, throwing him to the ground and he sustained a severe ankle injury.
The police came to the scene and decided that the motorcyclist was at fault, accusing him of passing in the restricted median area. Although the officer interviewed a witness who was a few cars behind the accident, he never asked him whether he saw the motorcyclist cross the solid double line into the median area before the collision occurred. The witness’ deposition was taken and he confirmed the motorcyclist’s version. Amazingly, even though the police officer’s sketch in the police report showed the point of impact in the traffic lane, not in the median area, at his deposition the officer testified that the drawing was a mistake. Given the foregoing, it was pretty much a no-brainer to proceed with the case to conclusion. That case is still pending.
The moral of the story is that it is important to weigh the chances of success in disputed fault cases. If the downside significantly outweighs the upside, it makes sense to cut your losses.
If you have been injured in a motorcycle accident you need an aggressive and experienced motorcycle accident lawyer protecting your rights. Call Russ Brown @ 1-800-4-BIKERS to discuss your case with a skilled motorcycle accident lawyer!
If you have been injured in a motorcycle accident in New York, Pennsylvania, or Ohio you need an Aggressive Motorcycle accident lawyer to protect your rights! Call 1-800-424-5377 today! Rob Fleming is a Freelance writer for hire with over 10 years experience in Developing unique website content, Website Marketing, and SEO techniques. He has authored hundreds of powerful articles on building site authority and driving traffic to websites.
Recent Comments