A Snohomish County jury ruled last week that the State of Washington is responsible for 23-year-old motorcyclist Jared Barton's permanent brain injuries resulting from an accident caused by the defective design of a section of State Route 536.

The case's verdict issued from judge Anita Farris on Nov. 21 awards Barton $3.6 million.

Barton was riding his motorcycle westbound on SR 536 on the evening of November 27, 2004 when he was struck by a vehicle turning left onto the highway to travel east.

According to the testimony of the vehicle's driver, she looked in each direction after stopping at the stop line of the "T" intersection at SR 536 and Moore's Garden Road. When she didn't see on-coming traffic, she began making her turn and pulled directly into Barton's lane causing the collision.

Both the driver and Barton's attorneys argued that the driver was not able to see Barton's headlight because her view to the left from the stop line was blocked by two large trees. Additionally, the driver testified that she was unaware that her view was obstructed because it was dark and the trees were not visible at night.

OH GIVE ME A F'ING BREAK!

This was her fault all the way. Common sense tells everyone that if you can't see down the road because of some trees blocking your view, you pull out a little bit further.

What really happened was that she was lazy and didn't give a very good look down the road. She took a gamble that no one was coming down the road, and it cost a biker with permanent brain damage. So now she's blaming the State because of some trees.

She's trying to argue that the "Stop line" prevented her from pulling out a little bit further to see down the road. Worse yet, her proclaimed innocence allows her to continue putting more bikers in peril.

So now that this precedence has been set, how many more times will the State assume responsibility for bad drivers, until they decide to take drastic measures?

Source: Luvera Law Firm

Labels: Motorcycle Lawsuits

Santa Cruz, CA

The Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is considering a lawsuit against organizers of the Santa Cruz County Fair, after being told they would be kicked out of the fair if they showed up wearing colors...

http://www.theksbwchannel.com/news/14119681/detail.html

Interestingly, the organizers allowed the club to set up a booth at the fair to sell clothes and other items bearing the club colors.

Gilroy, CA

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to rehear a case involving the Top Hatters Motorcycle Club and the Gilroy Garlic Festival.

The case involved the organizers of the festival ordering club members out of the event because they showed up wearing their club colors. Read our previous article about this case, "Court Rules that Wearing Club Colors is Not Free Speech".

The court's originaly ruling is that the colors and club insignia didn't meet the definition of "speech"...

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6896229

Labels: Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, Motorcycle Lawsuits, No Colors Policy, Top Hatters Motorcycle Club

In the UK, a banker was stopped by police after riding his motorcycle 132mph. But the court cleared him on a technicality.

His attorney, the famed Nick Freeman, also known as "Mr. Loophole", helped him get off.

The policed cited the fast rider for dangerous driving, however, prosecutors charged him with speeding. Freeman cited an old 1922 case pointing out the conflicts, and the court agreed by throwing out the case.

Via Daily Record

Labels: Motorcycle Lawsuits, Speeding

An interesting twist in the legal battles over denied insurance claims was reported by the Metropolitan News Company today, regarding under-insured motorist coverage, presumably in the State of California. I say "presumably" because the article doesn't specifically mention what State this dealt with.

But the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that automobile insurers cannot deny uninsured motorist coverage, and under-insured motorist coverage, when the policy holder operates a vehicle with less than four wheels.

The case involved a San Diego police officer who suffered an injury while riding his police motorcycle, when we was struck by another driver. The other driver had liability coverage, but only up to a maximum of $15,000.00. The officer's personal policy had under-insured coverage for up $30,000.00, but claimed that because he was riding a motorcycle, the benefits did not apply.

The officer sued the insurance company, but lost. However when he appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, he won.

The winning argument was that the exclusion violates Insurance Code Sec. 11580.2, which mandates that all motor vehicle policies written in the state (I assume California) include UM and UIM coverage unless waived by both the insured and insurer in writing and in the manner specified by the code section.

However, the article goes on to note that this piece of code does not extend to policy holder's liability coverage, only UM and UIM coverage.

So, it seems that if you have already have UM and/or UIM coverage through your automobile insurance, you may not have to get UM and UIM coverage on your motorcycle insurance policy. But check your State's insurance laws first. (Like you'll really do that anyways!)

Labels: Motorcycle Insurance, Motorcycle Lawsuits