Advanced Search

Deceased motorcyclist's wife and her lawyers win her case against a driver her drove in front of him, resulting in his death in Snohomish County, Washington

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Saturday, September 20, 2003
Result Date: 
Thursday, June 8, 2006
Monetary Result: 
$615,773
  David Aultman was driving his Yamaha motorcycle north on State Route 9 in Snohomish County, Washington on September 20, 2003. Meanwhile, Margaret Blystone was driving her car west on 164th Street SE and stopped at a stop sign at the intersection with State Route 9. She began to proceed into the intersection, placing her car in the way of Mr. Aultman. According to his family and attorneys, he did not have enough time to avoid hitting her, and he and his motorcycle collided with the side of Mrs. Blystone's vehicle. Mr. Aultman died in the accident as a result of blunt-force trauma.  Mr. Aultman's wife Bonnie filed a wrongful death lawsuit in 2004 against Mrs. Blystone and her husband Olin. She and her attorneys argued that Mrs. Blystone's negligence was the single factor that caused the accident and her husband's death. She sought damages on behalf of her husband for physical pain and suffering, mental and emotional suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium (loss of her spouse and his support), and medical and funeral expenses. The Blystones denied any negligence, and contended that Mr. Aultman had negligently operated his vehicle. They brought an expert witness, an accident reconstructionist, who concluded that Mr. Aultman shoudl have been able to stop before the collision. He had, according to the expert, applied his brakes too heavily, resulting in him losing control. Ultimately, the jury sided with Mrs. Aultman and her lawyers, awarding a total of $615,773.29. Mr. Aultman was not found to have contributed to the accident.

Motorcyclist and his lawyers win his case against Saudi Arabian Airlines and Budget Rent-a-Car after he suffers severe injuries, awarding him $984,524

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Tuesday, January 26, 1993
Result Date: 
Friday, March 3, 1995
Monetary Result: 
$984,254
  On January 26, 1993, John Randolph was riding his motorcycle west on the Pacific Coast Highway in the right lane. Fahad Abdullah Maghrabi, an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines, was stopped on Corral Canyon waiting to turn onto the highway to drive east. According to a police report, Maghrabi, who was driving a rental car from Budget Rent-A-Car, did not see Randolph coming and proceeded into the highway, causing a collision between Randolph's motorcycle and his car. The police report stated that Maghrabi was at fault due to his failure to yield to oncoming traffic. As a result of the accident Randolph suffered extensive injuries. He suffered severe injuries to his left knee that ultimately lead to an artificial knee replacement. He additionally suffered injuries his pelvis, leading to sexual dysfunction. Randolph and his wife, Johanne Randolph, sued Maghrabi's employer, Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Budget Rent-a-Car for motor vehicle negligence, as Maghrabi failed to yield to traffic. He sued due to his expenses and lost wages resulting from his injuries, and his wife sued due to the loss of a spousal relationship (loss of consortium) with her husband. The defending parties' lawyers admitted that Maghrabi was negligent, and that Randolph did not contribute to the cause of the accident. The court ruled that since Maghrabi was doing an assignment from his employer and that he was the driver permitted to use the rented vehicle, that his employer Saudi Arabian Airlines was liable for the injuries and other damages that resulted from his negligence. Both side's lawyers brought expert medical witnesses to the stand. The court found that Randolph's doctors provided more compelling testimony. Randolphs lawyers' brought his primary care doctor, who had treated him for nine years, to the stand, stating that his injuries were sustained in the accident. The defendants' doctor, who had only seen Randolph in one visit, argued otherwise. The court found that Randolph's expert medical witness' testimony was more compelling than that of the defendants'. Ultimately the court sided with the Randolphs, awarding them $984,254. Saudi Arabian Airlines was liable for a total of $914,254 to John Randolph. Budget's maximum liability of $15,000 was also awarded to him. The loss of consortium to his wife, Johanne Randolph, was aportioned at $55,000, $40,000 of liability from Saudi Ariabian Airlines, and $15,000 from Budget. John Randolph was found by the court to be entitled to $164,254 of special damages, including $115,646 for past medical expenses, $33,750 for future medical expenses, $8,858 for past income, and $6,000 for future income. He was also found to be entitled to $750,000 for general damages, including $200,000 for past sexual dysfunction and $50,000 for future sexual dysfunction. This total also included $300,000 for past pain and suffering, $150,000 for future pain and suffering associated with the knee replacement. and $50,000 for other future pain and suffering. The award of $40,000 general damages to his wife consisted of $30,000 for past lost consortium, and $10,000 for future lost consortium.

Deceased motorcyclist's parents and their lawyers win their case against a laundry company after one of their drivers struck and killed their son

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Monday, February 1, 1988
Result Date: 
Saturday, December 1, 1990
Monetary Result: 
$850,000

Mr. Martin, a 23-year-old airline baggage clerk was riding his motorcycle in February, 1988 when it collided with a laundry delivery truck owned by Peerless Laundry making a left turn into Martin's path. Mr. Martin died as a result of the accident.

Martin's parents decided to sue the laundry company for the wrongful death of their son. During the trial, it was revealed that the driver at the time was actually an accounts-payable clerk who happened to be filling in as a driver that day. Martin's parents and their lawyers argued that the laundry company was negligent in using an untrained employee as a driver, and that the driver was searching for an address at the time of the accident. They produced witnesses that stated that their son was driving within the speed limit with his headlight on at the time of the crash.

The dendant laundry company contended that the driver was not negligent. They argued that Martin was driving over 100 MPH at the time of the crash without his headlight on.

In the end, the jury sided with Martin's parents and their lawyers, awarding them $850,000.

Lawyers of deceased youth's parents win their clients $567,345 after their son died in a motorcycle accident with a commercial vehicle

Accident Type: 
Motorcycle Accident
Incident Date: 
Friday, May 8, 1987
Result Date: 
Monday, April 2, 1990
Monetary Result: 
$907,751
  This accident was occured when a 17-year-old motorcyclist collided with a commercial vehicle at a busy intersection, resulting in the youth's death. The incident occurred at 7 p.m. on May 8, 1987 in clear weather, at an intersection with two lanes and a left­ hand turn lane running south to north and two lanes north to south, in the City of Lafayette, California. Michael Richardson, 45-years-old and Audrey Richardson are the parents of a 17-year-old boy who was killed in a motorcycle accident. They argued that an employee of the defending copmany, Style Master Exteriors, who was driving a car, took an illegal left turn which blocked the boy’s right of way. The boy’s motorcycle crashed into the car, and he died at the site of the accident. The parents claimed the illegal left turn was the cause of the accident and that the driver, and therefore his comapany as well, were the negligent party. The case was settled against the driver himself before trial for his insurance policy limits of $15,000. The driver's employer, Style Master Exteriors, argued the crash was caused by the negligence of the motorcycle rider. They alleged that the motorcyclist was racing with another boy. They claimed he therefore was driving too fast and following the other boy too closely, and that this caused him to be inattentive to vehicles in the intersection. The employer further claimed that, because the boy died of a head injury and was not wearing a helmet, his injuries were caused by his own negligence. The vehicle driver's employer also claimed the boy’s mother negligently entrusted her son with the motorcycle. Ultimately, the Richardsons won their suit against the employer of the vehicle's driver, Style Master Exteriors. The total amount awarded to the deceased motorcyclist's parents totaled $907,751. Their son, however, was found to be 37.5% at fault, and therefore the total amount they recieved totaled $567,345.

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.

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.

One of the most dangerous places of all for a motorcyclist is also impossible to avoid while riding

Intersections. How many of them do you go through on the average trip through town or beyond?  The vast majority of motorcycle collisions happen at intersections. Imagine that you’re on a motorcycle, turning left when a much bigger, heavier vehicle such as a car or truck comes barreling through and hits you. These kinds of accidents are hard on someone in a fully enclosed vehicle, but can be absolutely devastating to someone on a bike. If the person who hit you did so out of negligence or recklessness, you may be due a substantial payout for your injuries and losses from the at-fault party. How will you find out? Reading the article is a great place to start.