Riding a motorcycle comes with inherent risks, but responsible motorcyclists do their best to minimize these risks. Still, they must share the roadways with car and truck drivers who are not so careful. Because motorcycle riders are vulnerable to the elements, any collision between a motorcyclist and a larger vehicle can lead to severe injury or death for the motorcyclist, even in an accident that leaves the occupants of the other vehicle without a scratch. By some estimates, motorcyclists are 28% more likely to die in an accident than occupants of cars or trucks.
When this happens because of the negligence of a car or truck driver, the injured motorcyclist or their family members may recover compensation for their damages through a personal injury claim. However, first they have to prove that the other driver was at fault. To understand how this works, we need to explore the concept of negligence.
Negligence
Negligence is the legal theory that forms the basis of most personal injury lawsuits. The basic elements of negligence are:
- Duty
- Breach
- Causation
- Damages
Essentially, all drivers have a duty to do what a reasonable driver would do to minimize the risk of an accident that would hurt other people on the road. They breach this duty and act negligently when they drive carelessly. If their negligence causes an accident that hurts another person, they can be held liable for that person’s damages, including medical expenses. lost wages, pain and more.
Motorcycle accident cases
Next, let’s apply this concept to a motorcycle accident case.
A car driver has a duty to watch out for other vehicles on the road, including motorcycles. If they fail to do so, they breach that duty and act negligently. If this negligence leads to an accident that hurts the motorcyclist, the injured motorcyclist can hold them liable for their damages.
Who is at fault?
One of the most difficult issues in any motor vehicle accident case is proving who was at fault. This may be even more difficult in motorcycle accident cases.
In many cases, it can be hard to prove who was at fault after an accident. Because motorcycle riding is inherently risky, many people assume that motorcyclist was at fault in most accidents, but the statistics suggest otherwise.
In fact, about two-thirds of all motorcycle accidents involve two or more vehicles. A majority happen at intersections. This suggests that a large percentage of accidents involve other drivers who fail to see motorcycles and violate their right-of-way.
Comparative negligence
As we noted, it isn’t always easy to prove who was at fault for an accident, and sometimes defendants find ways to say the motorcyclist was at fault or partly at fault for the accident. For example, the car driver may say the motorcyclist was speeding at the time of the accident.
This brings up a related concept that can be important in many of these cases: Comparative negligence.
Under Montana’s comparative negligence law, a plaintiff can recover compensation so long as their share of fault for the accident was less than the other party’s. In such a case, the court would assess each party’s fault as a percentage. If the motorcyclist was less than 51% at fault, they can recover compensation. However, their compensation must be reduced in proportion to their share of fault.
In other words, if a motorcyclist suffered $100,000 in damages, but they were 25% at fault, their compensation is reduced by 25% to $75,000.
For plaintiffs, one good aspect this law is that it allows the injured to recover some compensation even if they were partly at fault. One not-so-food aspect is that defendants can use comparative negligence arguments as a way to reduce the amount of money they must pay in compensation.