Fault for an Accident Between a Bicycle and a Stopped Vehicle

[Mr. Knowitall]

How none of you can acknowledge any negligence on the truck's part is very curious to me.

It depends on the facts.

If you are riding down a road at a reasonable speed for the roadway, there are no indications of road work or stopped vehicles ahead, come around a blind curve, and run into the back of a maintenance vehicle that is blocking the bicycle lane, you have an argument that the company that placed its vehicle in that location was negligent.

If you are riding down a straight road, a vehicle is parked on the road ahead of you, but you fail to look up and notice its presence until it is too late to avoid colliding with the rear of the vehicle, even if it would have been safer for the owner of the vehicle (or its workers) to post warning signs in advance of the vehicle, it becomes very difficult to prove negligence on their part because all you had to do to avoid the accident was pay a reasonable amount of attention to the road ahead of you.

Also, as a matter of routine, people operating bicycles and other vehicles on roadways will encounter emergency vehicles that partially block the road without any advance notice -- utility vehicles, tow trucks, ambulances, police vehicles and the like. It sounds like the vehicle that you encountered had a clear, illuminated arrow sign warning you of its presence and which way to divert your bicycle to avoid collision. It is very difficult to argue that such a sign is an insufficient warning if all you had to do was look forward down the road and see it, and you had a reasonable opportunity to do so before hitting the vehicle.

I asked who polices and what doctrine sets policy and standards for roadside workers? Thus far, none of you can answer that simple question.

There's no single, magical repository of all governing policies and standards, and you can't compel private companies to turn over their policies without suing them and obtaining them through discovery. For public agencies you would need to look at the state's public records laws. Beyond that, you can research state laws and regulations that relate to whatever type of work was being conducted at the time, and whatever type of vehicle was involved.

I also asked for the precedent set forth by court cases that states motorists are typically at fault when involved in a construction zone accident. No link or support was provided for that statement either.

You are free to look for case law through services like Google Scholar, or paid services like Westlaw. The fact that you believe that magical cases exist that will give clear answers to a question like that reflects your very poor understanding both of legal research and of the use of case law.

You would be better served by researching the presumption that a vehicle that strikes another vehicle from the rear is presumptively at fault for the accident.

A very small percentage of these cases ever see the inside of a courtroom. That is because the real professionals, who are the personal injury lawyers on both sides of the case, are able to see it from an impartial standpoint. They are also very aware of the risks and losses that could result from going to trial.

It's because most non-meritorious cases are resolved short of trial through summary disposition, and most other cases are settled. It's not because defense lawyers attempt to be impartial or like handing out money to people who cause their own injuries.

As for 'design immunity,' tell me....

Successful cases alleging negligent road design are rare; but that aside, such cases have absolutely nothing to do with the situation you describe. This isn't a road design issue. It's you failing to notice a stopped vehicle in the roadway in front of you until it was too late to avoid rear-ending the vehicle.

35 years ago, when I got in my last bike accident, a lawyer called it 'contributory negligence.' Now, if there is any difference in meaning, they call it comparative negligence. Either way, it is the shared responsibility of negligence and fault.

No, the concepts are not the same.

Under comparative negligence, the relative negligence of the parties is assessed. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's responsibility for his own injury. So if a plaintiff is 90% at fault and a defendant is 10% at fault, the plaintiff recovers 10% of the damages that resulted from the injury.

For contributory negligence, if a plaintiff bears any fault for his own injury he cannot recover damages from the defendant, even if the plaintiff's share fault is @1%. There are a few exceptions to the rule (e.g., "last clear chance" doctrine) that try to make it less unjust, but it is a rule that serves to deprive a great many injured people of fair compensation.

Some jurisdictions use a mixed model. For example, in some jurisdictions a plaintiff whose fault for his own injury is 50% or greater cannot recover from the defendant, but for fault less than 50% comparative fault principles apply.

[Brian57]

Successful cases alleging negligent road design are rare; but that aside, such cases have absolutely nothing to do with the situation you describe. This isn't a road design issue. It's you failing to notice a stopped vehicle in the roadway in front of you until it was too late to avoid rear-ending the vehicle.

Here we are 25 posts in and the situation is still misunderstood. It was not "road design." It was a matter of private road workers forcing 10mph bike traffic into 60mph car traffic with no cones or signs to warn either the traffic or bikes of a potentially deadly merger. THAT is gross negligence according to the MUTCD...their bible. Inferring that I should lick my wounds because I could not react fast enough to their deadly instructions is well....

I have ridden that stretch of road over 500 times according to my Garmin. I have ridden over 60,000 miles on PCH without a single incident. My reaction time is impeccable. But I have never been directed by road authorities into a suicide move like that.

[Mr. Knowitall]

As for 'design immunity,' tell me that we do not see the State and Cities pay out large settlements for the negligence of their employees?

Here we are 25 posts in and the situation is still misunderstood. It was not "road design."

If you are capable of reading, you will see that I explicitly stated that your situation has nothing to do with road design. I was trying to get the thread back on track, something you make difficult with your consistent obnoxious behavior and off-topic statements.

When you claim that something is "gross negligence according to the MUTCD", all you are doing is demonstrating yourself to be ignorant of basic facts and basic law.

[Jim Kozlovich]

A very small percentage of these cases ever see the inside of a courtroom. That is because the real professionals, who are the personal injury lawyers on both sides of the case, are able to see it from an impartial standpoint. They are also very aware of the risks and losses that could result from going to trial.

This may be true but lawyers in civil cases have access to procedures to gather more evidence such as depositions, request for admissions, answers to interrogatories and so forth and they won't come to a decision until they have all the evidence. All we get from you is your biased opinion that the "truck driver" was at fault and someone else should pay you for not watching where you were going.

I would suggest that you do a Google search for your county law library and go do the research yourself rather than expecting the people in this forum to do it for you. If you don't know how to do legal research, the librarian will be able to help you. (Although, with your attitude they may ask you to leave too.)

[Taxing Matters]

Here we are 25 posts in and the situation is still misunderstood. It was not "road design." It was a matter of private road workers forcing 10mph bike traffic into 60mph car traffic with no cones or signs to warn either the traffic or bikes of a potentially deadly merger. THAT is gross negligence according to the MUTCD...their bible. Inferring that I should lick my wounds because I could not react fast enough to their deadly instructions is well....

Two things. First, the MUTCD does not determine standards of negligence, let alone gross negligence. It sets up recommendations for how things ought to be set up. You may try to argue that a set up that does not follow the MUTCD was negligent, but that takes more than just saying the MUTCD was not followed. You’d likely need expert testimony that not only was the MUTCD not followed, but that the specific set up posed an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Second. you are overlooking the central problem, or at least glossing over it. If while traveling at a reasonable speed the obtruction you hit was readily visible from a distance such that you could have stopped or changed direction in time to avoid hitting it, you will likely end up bearing at least the greater share of the negligence because if you had simply paid attention and stopped or changed direction you would not have been injured at all. Anytime a moving car or bike hits a stationary object, the rider/driver faces that problem. Unless you can succeed in convincing the court that it was simply not possible to see it in time to react and avoid the collision, you’ll have a hard time winning this one in my experience. I realize that’s not the answer you want to hear and are fighting hard for a different answer. So see a personal injury lawyer for his/her take on it and see if any of them will take the case.

[JJPuzzles]

Brian, I'm sorry about your injuries and hope you make a full recovery. I know that the road is a dangerous place for cyclists.

Having said that, your complaints about the road crew seem unfounded. I believe that if you can't see a parked truck, you also won't see a cone or a sign until you run into it. That's why I don't think they should share any of the responsibility for your accident.

Had there been a flagger, there would likely have been 3 injured people instead of just 2.