California Court Upholds $1.4 Million Motorcycle Accident Judgment

In Riverside motorcycle accident cases, defendants will often try to shift blame onto the motorcyclist plaintiff.

Like most states, California follows a “comparative negligence” rule in personal injury lawsuits. This means that when a case is presented to a jury, the jurors must apportion fault between the plaintiff, defendant, and any other parties whose actions contributed to the underlying accident. The defendant is then only financially responsible for their share of the fault.

Inapplicable Jury Instruction Insufficient To Overturn Verdict

Of course, attempting to shift blame does not always work out in the defendant’s favor. Consider this recent decision from the California Second District Court of Appeals. In Duric v. Taylor, an injured motorcyclist won a verdict of over $1.4 million despite defense protests that the verdict was tainted by a bad jury instruction.

Here is what took place. One day in 2018, the plaintiff was riding his motorcycle. The defendant, who was driving her car, abruptly changed lanes without signaling. This caused the front of the plaintiff’s car to strike the plaintiff’s motorcycle, knocking him to the ground.

The plaintiff sustained serious injuries in the accident and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant. At trial, the defense argued the plaintiff was speeding just before the accident and “could have taken effective evasive maneuvers” to avoid the collision. The defense argued that the plaintiff could have “sped up or moved [five] feet to the right when he saw the defendant change lanes,” according to court records.

The trial judge gave the jury two instructions as to the law. The first instruction basically said that if the plaintiff was “without negligence” and “unexpectedly confronted” with “imminent peril,” he was not expected or required to “use the same judgment and prudence” that is normally required of someone in his position. The second instruction said that if the plaintiff was confronted by a peril caused by the defendant’s negligence, and the plaintiff instinctively tried to escape that peril and in the course of doing so, injured himself, the defendant was liable for that injury.

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was 100% responsible for the motorcycle accident. The jury awarded a total of $1.4 million in damages. On appeal, the defendant argued the second jury instruction was improper and, as a result, she was entitled to a new trial.

The Court of Appeals agreed the instruction was unwarranted but declined to disturb the jury’s verdict. The challenged instruction was meant to cover scenarios where a plaintiff sustained a “self-inflicted injury” while trying to escape peril. That was not what happened in this case. That said, the appellate court held the jury’s verdict did not rely on the second instruction. It relied on the first instruction, which required a finding that the plaintiff was not negligent.

Contact a Riverside Motorcycle Accident Lawyer Today

If you are seriously injured while riding your motorcycle through Southern California, it is imperative that you seek out qualified legal advice regarding your right to recover compensation from a negligent driver. Our Riverside motorcycle accident attorneys are here to help. Contact The JLF Firm today to schedule a consultation.