Motorcycle Accidents

Navigating the Aftermath of a Motorcycle Accident in California: The Importance of Contacting an Experienced Injury Lawyer

June 15, 2024 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Motorcycle accidents can be life-altering events, leaving victims with severe injuries, emotional trauma, and a daunting path to recovery. In California, where motorcycling is a popular mode of transportation due to the state’s scenic routes and favorable weather, the risk of accidents is a constant concern. If you or a loved one has been injured in a motorcycle accident in California, it’s crucial to understand why contacting an experienced injury lawyer can make a significant difference in your recovery and compensation journey.

The Unique Risks of Motorcycle Riding

Motorcycles offer little protection in the event of a collision, making riders more vulnerable to severe injuries compared to car occupants. Common injuries from motorcycle accidents include:

Will California Courts Discount Future Damages Awards to Present Value?

July 12, 2019 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a California personal injury case, a plaintiff can seek various damages depending on the injuries they sustained and the effects those injuries are expected to have in the future. Common types of damages awards include those for lost wages, past medical expenses, and past pain and suffering. However, serious accidents often have lasting consequences on a plaintiff’s life, and, commonly, plaintiffs will suffer damages that occur well after the conclusion of the trial. In these cases, courts allow plaintiffs to seek future damages.

Types of future damages awards include amounts for lost future income, future medical expenses, and for any future pain and suffering. The award of future damages presents an interesting issue in that the future value of these damages award may not be equal to the present value of the same sum. This is because of the effect of compound interest. For example, if someone is promised $1,000 ten years from now, the present value of that $1,000 is less than $1,000.

The actual present value is the amount that, if invested today, will yield $1,000 in 10 years. Of course, this depends on the interest rate, but the effect can be significant. To illustrate the significance of this concept, the present value of $1,000 to be received in 10 years, at a discount rate of 5% is $614.

How Fault Is Apportioned in California Motorcycle Accidents

May 29, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

While some California motorcycle accidents present a situation in which one party is clearly the victim and another clearly at fault, it is common for the parties involved to each be partially at fault. In California, courts apply the “pure comparative fault” method when determining which parties are entitled to recover compensation for their injuries.

Under a pure comparative fault analysis, an accident victim can recover compensation for their injuries even if they are at fault. Additionally, a defendant can only be liable to an accident victim for their own percentage of fault. If the jury determines that the plaintiff was partially at fault, the judge will reduce the plaintiff’s recovery amount by their own percentage of fault.

For example, Driver A and Driver B might be involved in an accident, with Driver A being 40% at fault and Driver B being 60% at fault. If Driver A files a California car accident lawsuit against Driver B, and the damages are determined to be $500,000, Driver A will be awarded $300,000, or $500,000 reduced by 40%.

Court Allows Case Against Accounting Firm After California Motorcycle Accident

May 1, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

One of the most important considerations in any California personal injury case is understanding when the claim must be filed. In a recent case, an appellate court allowed a California motorcycle accident case to proceed to trial despite the defendant’s argument that the claim was filed after the relevant statute of limitations had expired.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff hired an accounting firm to manage her finances. As part of the agreement, the firm was to purchase insurance for the plaintiff and her family. The plaintiff asked the firm to obtain uninsured/underinsured insurance with a $5 million policy limit, but the firm obtained a policy with a limit of only $1.5 million.

The plaintiff’s son was later involved in a motorcycle accident, resulting in his sustaining serious injuries. The plaintiff only then found out that her insurance policy was limited to $1.5 million. After receiving the $1.5 million payout under her insurance policy, the plaintiff sued the accounting firm, alleging that she and her son suffered damages because they could not collect the additional money under the policy that she had requested.

Seeking Financial Recovery After a California Motorcycle Accident

March 26, 2018 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The temperate climate of California is perfect for motorcycle enthusiasts. In fact, California offers some of the most popular motorcycle routes, including the views from Big Sur along Highway 1. However, each year as more motorcyclists take the road, there is a corresponding increase in California motorcycle accidents.

This is not to say that the accidents are caused by motorcyclists. Indeed, the majority of motorcycle accidents involving more than one vehicle are later determined to be the fault of the other motorist. The causes of motorcycle accidents vary, but distracted driving, drunk driving, and aggressive driving are among the top causes of fatal motorcycle accidents.

When a motorist’s negligence causes a motorcycle accident, the injured motorcyclist may be able to obtain compensation for any injuries sustained in the crash through a personal injury lawsuit. If successful, a plaintiff may be able to recover compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and any pain and suffering caused by the accident.

Assumption of the Risk in California Personal Injury Cases

November 2, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

When someone is injured while playing sports or engaging in another recreational activity, the injured party may be able to seek financial compensation for their injuries against the responsible parties through a California personal injury lawsuit. However, the doctrine of assumption of the risk can act to bar some plaintiffs’ lawsuits when the activity at issue is inherently dangerous and comes with well-known risks.

The idea behind the assumption of the risk doctrine is that plaintiffs are in the best position to avoid known risks associated with certain activities. If a plaintiff choses to disregard a known risk and engage in the activity nonetheless, courts will not hold a defendant liable when a plaintiff is injured due to the presence of a known risk. However, there are exceptions to the assumption of the risk doctrine, one of which is when the defendant creates an additional risk that is not normally present when engaging in the recreational activity.

A recent California personal injury case illustrates one plaintiff’s attempt to establish an exception to the general assumption of the risk rule. While the plaintiff was unsuccessful in convincing the court, the case is important in understanding the assumption of the risk doctrine.

California Appeals Court Affirms Decision in Favor of Defendants Because Plaintiff Had Not Met Burden of Showing Triable Issue of Material Fact for Gross Negligence Claim

August 17, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent decision, the California Court of Appeal upheld a judgment in favor of the defendants after the plaintiff alleged that their negligence had caused his injuries, but he failed to meet his burden of proof. After suffering injuries while participating in a class on motorcycle basic rider training offered by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for negligence against another participant, as well as the Foundation. The appellate court reviewed the evidence supporting the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this California motorcycle accident case.

The facts indicate that the plaintiff had signed a form, titled “Waiver and Indemnification,” for the course. His complaint against the defendants alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligent training and supervision. The defendants moved for summary judgment and asserted the waiver the plaintiff signed barred his causes of action.

The plaintiff contended that his gross negligence cause of action remained, and he also contended the waiver was not enforceable because of fraud. The trial court agreed that the plaintiff had not shown evidence of gross negligence and had not demonstrated the waiver should be void. The plaintiff appealed.

California Court of Appeal Holds Employee May Have Been on “Business Errand” Benefiting Employer at Time of Motorcycle Collision

April 20, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent opinion, the California Court of Appeals held it was a question of fact for the jury as to whether an employee was on a business errand while commuting, and as a result, whether the employer could be liable for injuries to a motorcyclist struck by the employee in a collision. The general rule, set forth by the court, is that employees are not within the course and scope of employment while traveling to their workplace. However, California law holds that if an employee is commuting and on an errand for their employer, their conduct falls under the scope of employment.

In this case, a construction company, the defendant, paid an employee for the hours he worked at a job site. The company expected the employee to commute to the company “yard” and drive a company truck to the job site, along with coworkers and materials. While driving from his house to the yard, the employee struck a motorcyclist, who then sued the company.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant company on the basis that the employee had been commuting to “work” and was not acting within the scope of employment. But the issue framed by the appellate court was whether the “workplace” was the yard or the job site. If it was the job site, the employee had been on a business errand that benefited the employer.

California Court Upholds Jury Award to Plaintiff Injured in Motorcycle Collision, Determines Plaintiff’s Statement to His Insurer was Privileged

April 3, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

An unpublished opinion issued by a California Appellate Court addressed issues concerning confidentiality and privileged statements made by accident victims to their own insurance companies. Generally, a recorded statement made to the policyholder’s automobile insurance company following an accident is protected under the attorney-client privilege and cannot be used in trial. In this case, after the jury awarded the plaintiff damages for the defendant’s negligence in causing the collision, the defendant argued that the statement should have been admitted to court.

Before trial, the plaintiff made a statement to his own insurance carrier concerning the accident. The trial court determined that this statement had been protected by the attorney-client privilege, and this privilege was not waived. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred when they excluded the plaintiff’s statement to his insurer. The appellate court looked at whether the defendant’s arguments and the statement were properly before the court for consideration. They also analyzed the facts as they relate to laws concerning privilege and trial court error.

California Court of Appeal Finds Dismissal of Juror Prejudiced the State in Wrongful Death Claim Brought by Surviving Family Members after Motorcycle Crash

March 9, 2017 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Following a fatal head-on motorcycle accident on State Highway 33, surviving family members of the deceased brought a wrongful death action. A jury determined that the State of California and the operator of the other motorcycle had been at fault for the accident. Specifically, the State was deemed liable for a dangerous condition on the highway, and the victim’s family was awarded $12,690,000 in damages.

After deliberation, Juror No. 2 stated to the trial court that Juror No. 7 had not been deliberating, and a second Juror had stated this to be true as well. The trial court excused Juror No. 7 and seated an alternate. The issue in this case, on appeal, was whether the evidence supported a showing by “demonstrable reality” that the dismissed juror was unable to perform her duty.