Advanced Search

Motorcyclist's lawyers win against the Yamaha Corporation after motorcycle accident, alleging defective design

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Saturday, March 19, 1983
Result Date: 
Friday, June 14, 1985
Monetary Result: 
$1,652,000
  On March 19, 1983 the Plaintiff, Timothy Aston, a 17-year-old motorcyclist was riding a 1982 Yamaha Seca 400 motorcycle. He was hit on the side of his motorcycle by a motorist who ran a red light. Aston received a traumatic crushing injury to his leg. Doctors attempted to save it, however the leg was totally crushed and had to be amputated below the knee. Aston argued that the design of the motorcycle was defective, in that it lacked side protection safeguards, and that he was unaware of the dangerous design of motorcycles when his mother bought him his Yamaha. Aston also argued that the Department of Transportation studies, in which Aston's expert, Dr. Peterson, was involved, ended in 1975, with recommendations that side protections be designed into motorcycles, or for consumers to be warned of their dangers in use. Aston contended that Yamaha has deliberately neglected, for ten years, for financial reasons, to even crash-­test motorcycles, fearing the tests would confirm the Department of Transportation studies. The Defendant, the Yamaha Motor Corporation, argued that the design was not at all defective, and that Aston was comparatively at fault for accelerating into the intersection on the green light without looking to see the vehicle running the red light. Ultimately the jury sided with the Aston, awarding him $1,652,000 for his injuries.

Woman's lawyers win her case after being injured in an accident with two drunk drivers while riding on a motorcycle

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Saturday, July 10, 1982
Result Date: 
Wednesday, June 1, 1983
Monetary Result: 
$558,352
On July 10, 1982, at 11: 20 p.m.Sharon Crigger, a 36-year-old federal crop insurance adjuster with the Department of Agriculture, was riding as a passenger on the back of Kermit Johansson's motorcycle at Fruit and Ashlan Avenue. Ms. Crigger and Mr. Johansson were driving west on Ashlan when Patrick McHatton was traveling in a southbound direction on Fruit Avenue. The two vehicles collided with each other at the intersection controlled by light signals. Both drivers argued that they had the green light. Ms. Crigger was severely injured. She sustained several pelvic fractures, requiring 50 units of blood. She also suffered nerve injuries to her right leg and right arm, including her right shoulder, leaving her with residual dysfunction of the deltoid and triceps muscles of the right arm, which restricts her from strenuous activity, and in her work. She was in intensive care for nine days, and in the hospital for two months. She subsequently sued both Mr. Johansson and Mr. McHatton for their individual roles in causing the accident. Crigger had been dating Johansson for about a year prior to the accident, and they had been on a river rafting outing early that day. All the people involved consumed alcoholic beverages that day, although no blood alcohol content was taken from Ms. Crigger, who could not remember the incident due to her injuries. Mr. McHatton was arrested for felony drunk driving. McHatton argued that he had consumed four or five beers during the hour prior to the accident, and that he was on his way home. He was intending to continue driving south on Fruit avenue at the intersection, and had the green light. Physical factors of the accident indicated that his account was inconsistent, however. It appeared that he was making a left hand turn, and, further, was traveling at 15 to 20 m.p.h. at the time of the accident. Mr. McHatton admitted he was partially at fault, but argued that Mr. Johansson was also negligent, and that Ms. Crigger was comparatively negligent for getting onto the motorcycle with an impaired driver. Defendant Johansson claimed that he was traveling at 35 m.p.h., and that he had the green light. He further argued that he had no notice of the other motor vehicle until he was some twenty feet from the intersection, which time he caught a glimpse of the other vehicle, and at that point he attempted to take evasive action and brake, but was unable to apply his brake prior to impacting the motor vehicle. Defendant Johannson denied any liability. Both the plaintiff and the defendant brought expert witnesses to the stand. An accident reconstructionist testified on behalf of Ms. Crigger, testifying that even if both of the vehicles had the green light, that Mr. Johannson could have taken evasive action, and should have been able to reduce the speed of his motorcycle from 35 m.p.h. to 22 m.p.h., based on normal reaction time, had he not been drunk. Mr. Blair stated that this reduction of speed would reduce the velocity of impact by 60%. Another expert witness testified that Mr. McHatton had a blood alcohol content of .015, and that level his perceptual abilities were impaired. The defendant's expert witness testified that in his opinion the accident was unavoidable, as there were obstructions at the intersection that kept both drivers from seeing each other. Ultimately, Ms. Crigger and her lawyers won the case for her, awarding her $558,352.32. It was found that Mr. McHatton was primarily at fault, although Mr. Johansson contributed to the accident.

Lawyers of deceased motorcyclist's family win their case against the City of San Francisco, awarding the family $792,500

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Monday, June 28, 1982
Result Date: 
Friday, September 4, 1987
Monetary Result: 
$792,500
  Henry Washington, 51, was driving his motorcyle west on Folsom Street at 10:00 a.m. on June 28, 1982, in San Francisco. At the intersection of 13th Street, a car made a left turn and Washington ran into the vehicle, killing him. Washinton's surviving family decided to sue the city of San Francisco for negligent road design. They argued that dangerous conditions existed at this intersection due to 13th Street being directly under a freeway. It was claimed that the freeway support pillars, located on the center median strip, blocked the view of oncoming traffic to left turning vehicles. Their lawyers brought expert witnesses to testify. An accident reconstructionist testified that the configuration of the intersection, and its restricted sight lines, did not allow sufficient reaction times to allow a left turning vehicle to perceive and avoid a collision in these circumstances. In addition, they also brought a traffic engineer who testified that the intersection was dangerous, and that a protected left turn arrow phase was feasible at the intersection, and would have alleviated the danger. The City of San Francisco's lawyers argued that there was sufficient sight distance to allow left turning vehicles to see oncoming traffic. It was further claimed that the accident history did not show a dangerous condition. Their lawyers also brought expert witnesses to the stand. An engineering photographer testified that his photographs showed a good sight line between the vehicles, for at least three and a half seconds before the collision point. Ultimately the case was won by Washington's family. Their award was valued at $792,500, however it was reduced as 60% of liability was with the left-turning driver, 25% to the city, and 15% to Washington himself.

Motorcyclist loses case against the city of Stockton, California for negligent road construction

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Monday, October 12, 1981
Result Date: 
Wednesday, April 4, 1984
Monetary Result: 
$0
  Early in the morning on October 12, 1981 Jerry Baudensdistel, a 21-year-old shift supervisor at a bakery was driving his motorcycle down Charter Way in the city of Stockton. A pickup truck emerged off of Aurora Street, and Baudendistel slams his motorcycle into the truck, and was ran over by a third vehicle. He sustained serious injuries in the crash, including partial paraplegia, with a loss of functioning below the waist. He also suffered constant muscle spasms. Baudendistel decided to sue the city of Stockton for negligent road construction. He argued that he could not see far enough down Charter Way to be able to see a vehicle coming out of Aurora Street. The city claimed that there was no lack of sight distance and that sight distance was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, the city of Stockton won the case and Baudendistel was not given any award.

17-year-old motorcyclist's lawyers win his case against Sacramento County after he suffered brain damage and debilitating injuries

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Saturday, September 19, 1981
Result Date: 
Wednesday, January 2, 1985
Monetary Result: 
$854,000
  Robert Graves, 17, was riding his motorcycle down Garfield Avenue in Sacramento County, California on a Saturday night on September 19, 1981 and was trying to find a party accompanied by his friend Ron Strem and his girlfriend, who were riding in a car. Due to Graves's amnesia that resulted from the incident, Strem and others had to reconstruct what happened that night. According to Strem, the two had attended a party at a local park on the afternoon of the accident, gone to a sandwich shop to see a friend, where they had dinner, and met Strem’s girlfriend, who accompanied them as they stopped in at more parties they had heard were to be held that evening. Strem recalls that neither of the young men had consumed any alcoholic beverages during the day or the evening. Ron Strem, and his girlfriend, in his car, and Plaintiff, on his motorcycle, last stopped at a home on Silverstrand Way, and finding no one there that they knew, they decided to split up. Strem ;drove about one­half block, to the dead­end on Silverstrand, turned around, and proceeded westbound on Silverstrand. In the meantime, Graves had gotten on his motorcycle, started it and drove east on Silverstrand toward the dead­-end. According to an eyewitness, Graves accelerated his motorcycle, to at least 40 m.p.h., in the a ­half block distance, and backed off his accelerator just before striking the dead­end divider, but did not hit his brakes. At the end of Silverstrand Way there is a concrete and asphalt divider, six feet wide, which separates the end of Silverstrand Way from Garfield Avenue, which runs perpendicular to Silverstrand. Graves struck the divider, became airborne, and collided with a vehicle which was being driven south on Garfield Avenue. When Graves was found he was not breathing, and had to be revived at the scene through the use of closed heart massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. He later had a tracheostomy in the Emergency Room. He suffered brain damage, which manifested itself in loss of short term memory, and has deficits in expression through speech or writing, with a slim chance of improvement. Plaintiff suffered multiple fractures of the hip, pelvis, ribs, clavicle and foot. He was in a coma for eighteen days, lost his spleen, had a flail chest, and is unable to walk without a cane. He was not wearing a helmet, however the defendant's attorney's were not able to use this to prove comparative fault due to the judge's order. Graves argued that there was a dangerous condition of public property, in that the signing on Silverstrand was improper. There was a yellow reflectorized, diamond­-shaped Type N sign at the end of Silverstrand, facing east-bound traffic, and mounted on the divider at the centerpoint of Silverstrand. Graves argued that this sign was improper because it did not clearly notify the driver that the street was coming to an end. It was alleged that, either the the word "END" should have been written on the yellow sign, or it should have been a red reflectorized Type N sign, and that both of the latter signs are more in conformity with the recommendations of the State Traffic Manual than the sign that was used. Graves also argued that, at the last entrance onto Silverstrand, there was no Not a Through Street sign, as recommended by the State Traffic Manual, although its absence was not made known until one and a ­half years after the accident in question, by County investigators. County records show that such a sign was erected some time prior to the accident, and the testimony of the residents of the area do not agree whether or not the sign was missing as of the date of the accident. The County of Sacramento and their lawyers contended that the intersection was well lit, and that the yellow Type N sign was clearly visible for at least three hundred feet prior to the end of the roadway. They also argued that Graves was driving far in excess of the 25 m.p.h. speed limit, that Plaintiff’s driving was impaired by alcohol, and that the road was not dangerous when used with due care. In the end, the jury sided with Graves, who was awarded $854,000. He was found to be 52% at fault, however, and therefore this award had to be reduced to $405,650.

Motorcyclist loses case against the State of California for negligent road design

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Wednesday, June 14, 1978
Result Date: 
Monday, May 23, 1983
Monetary Result: 
$0
  This accident happened on June 14, 1978, at 4:10 p.m., in clear weather, on SR 36, at the Mill Creek Bridge in Tehama County. Daniel Blake, a 22-year-old assistant manager at a pizza parlor, was driving over the bridge when he ran into the re-acclimate seal on the roadway. He claimed that it was after the motorcycle ran over the seal that he lost control of his motorcycle. An oncoming vehicle struck Blake's leg and the rear half of his motorcycle. He suffered serious injuries that resulted in the loss of his right leg above the knee, as well as fractures and lacerations. He was in the hospital for three and a­ half months. Blake decided to sue the State of California for negligent road construction. He argued that there was not proper signage designating the appropriate speed crossing the bridge, and therefore he was driving too fast when he hit the seal on the pavement. The state contended that Blake was negligent in operating his motorcycle at a high rate of speed, and that his excessive speed caused the crash and his injuries. In the end, the state won its case, and Blake did not receive any award for his injuries.

If a loved one has been killed while riding a motorcycle, you are suffering too

Each time bikers get on the road, they are at the mercy of other drivers in cars that weigh on average four tons - not to mention tracks and semi-tractor trailers. In a crash with one of them, the odds seriously are stacked against the motorcycle driver. Terribly, sometimes this means fatal injuries for the motorcycle driver. If a loved one has been killed while on a motorcycle, chances are you dealing with painful grief and worry. Though nothing can bring back your family as it was before, help is available for the survivor's journey.

Crashes involving a single motorcyclist don't always mean it's the driver's fault

There is a bias out there about motorcyclists, and some unfortunately do ignore speed limits or safety requirements, much like any driver. So if you are involved in a single motorcycle crash, does this automatically mean you are the only one at fault? There are certain considerations that may apply, and there could be more to your accident than is obvious. To learn more about what to do after you were involved in a single motorcycle crash, click here.

A broadside collision is especially dangerous for a motorcycle

Motorcycles do not have the same protection all around them that other vehicles do. Even a tap from a car or truck can result in the motorcycle driver losing control, hitting another object such as a car or guardrail, and getting into a bad wreck that leaves the other driver unscathed. Typically it is the other driver who is at fault in these kinds of broadside collisions, which makes recouping losses more straightforward. However, before you attempt to recover your losses yourself through the maze of insurance policies and protocols, consult with a skilled lawyer. For more information on what to do if you've been broadsided while driving a motorcycle, click here.

Motorcycle accidents are a common occurrence in Phoenix and across Maricopa County. Phoenix is popular with motorcyclists, and with so many bikes on the roads, the number of collisions is high, and motorcycle accidents are a major safety and economic issue for riders in the Phoenix region.