When a motorcyclist is hit by another vehicle, the consequences can be devastating. Beyond the often severe physical injuries, motorcyclists face a grueling legal battle warped by bias and misconception. Members of the public often see riders as prone to speeding, weaving through traffic or taking unnecessary risks. Claims adjusters capitalize on these attitudes, recognizing that police, jurors and even judges may buy into the narrative. Even riders who travel defensively and lawfully can find themselves unfairly blamed without attorneys skilled in pushing back against these prejudices.

Under Indiana law, this blame-shifting is especially precarious. The state has a modified comparative fault rule, by which a motorcyclist who is found 51 percent or more at fault for an accident cannot recover any compensation. That is, the rider’s fault cannot be greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the injuries. Even if their fault is between 1 percent and 50 percent, whatever compensation they receive will be reduced by that percentage. This means a defense attorney only needs to convince a jury that the rider was more at fault than other parties involved. 

As a result, adjusters often deploy artful tactics, such as: 

• alleging the rider used excessive speed or lack of caution

• claiming the rider should have anticipated another driver’s error

• blaming on the motorcyclist’s clothing choices, like dark gear, for poor visibility

• insinuating that lack of a proper helmet proves the rider was reckless, even when helmet use had nothing to do with the crash

The ultimate aim is to tip the scales, pushing fault as close as possible to or above the 51 percent line.

Defense attorneys take these insurer strategies and build compelling narratives around them. They often focus on the motorcycle itself, highlighting loud pipes, sport bike aesthetics or aftermarket modifications. The rider’s very choice to ride may be called inherently dangerous. Witness statements from bystanders who “thought the bike was going fast” are emphasized. Defense attorneys may portray the rider as unpredictable, even when the actual violation was on the part of a distracted or careless driver. The goal is to craft a story believable enough to push blame on the motorcyclist up a notch.

If you have been injured in a crash, seek out an Indiana motorcycle accident attorney who knows how to counteract ingrained anti-biker bias. An attorney can use the voir dire process to identify and challenge juror candidates who express such a prejudice. An attorney also can call expert witnesses to explain the operation of motorcycles and how riders can react prudently to events and circumstances. In addition, accident reconstruction specialists can be called to testify about how the crash likely occurred. 

Rubino Ruman, Crosmer & Polen in Dyer, Indiana, serves injured motorcyclists statewide, including Lake, Porter and Tippecanoe counties. Call us at 219-227-4631 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation.