Articles Posted in Motorcycle Accident Case Law

In a trial following a Maryland motorcycle crash, a non-expert witness is limited in the testimony they are allowed to provide in court. Non-expert witnesses, or lay witnesses, are those not testifying as experts—because they have not been qualified by the court as experts. Under Maryland Rule 5-701, a lay witness may testify in the form of an opinion or an inference only when the opinion or inference is “rationally based on the perception of the witness,” and the testimony is “helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.” A lay witness may not provide an opinion that is based upon specialized knowledge, training, or experience, because the witness must be qualified as an expert to do so. Generally, a court has significant discretion to admit lay witness or expert witness opinion.

In a recent case before a state appellate court, the court considered whether several non-expert witnesses should have been allowed to testify about the speed of a motorcycle before a crash. In that case, a motorcyclist was riding his motorcycle when he crashed with another vehicle. The motorcyclist died as a result of his injuries, and his family filed a wrongful death claim and a negligence claim against the two occupants of the other vehicle. The case went to trial and the jury found in favor of the defendants.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the court should not have allowed the witnesses at trial to estimate the speed of the motorcycle. During the trial, several witnesses who heard the crash testified that just before the crash, the motorcyclist was driving fast, and was going about 80 to 100 miles per hour based on the sound of the motorcycle’s engine. A police officer who heard the crash also estimated that the motorcyclist was driving between 60 and 80 miles per hour before the crash.

States have different laws concerning the effect of the liability of the plaintiff on their ability to recover. Maryland follows the doctrine of contributory negligence. Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, juries in Maryland motorcycle accident cases may consider the fault of the plaintiff along with the fault of the defendants. If the jury considers the plaintiff’s fault and finds the plaintiff is even partially at fault for their injuries, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant(s). However, contributory negligence is not automatically considered in every Maryland jury trial. In Maryland, a court is required to give the jury an instruction on contributory negligence only if the evidence supports such an instruction. That is, there must be evidence to suggest that the plaintiff was negligent in order to warrant such an instruction.

Critics say that the consequences of the contributory negligence doctrine can be extremely harsh for plaintiffs, and most states have adopted a different approach. Many states follow the doctrine of comparative negligence. Under that doctrine, a plaintiff generally can still recover compensation even if they are still found to be at fault. In some states, a plaintiff is limited as long as the plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault.

In a recent opinion, one court considered the impact of a jury’s decision finding that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries in a comparative fault jurisdiction. There, the plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle when the motorcycle got into a crash with a tractor. The plaintiff filed a claim against the motorcycle driver and the farmer that was driving the tractor.

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court released an opinion illustrating why some Maryland motorcycle accident cases may require the testimony from an expert witness. The case involved a motorcycle accident that was allegedly caused by a defective tire and made worse by the fact that the helmets worn by the plaintiffs were also defective. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ case against the defendants was insufficient as a matter of law because the plaintiffs failed to present any expert witness testimony establishing causation.

According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiffs were on a cross-country motorcycle trip. While riding through Nebraska, one of the motorcycle’s tires became punctured, causing the tire to deflate rapidly. As a result, the driver of the motorcycle lost control and crashed into the center median. Both plaintiffs were wearing helmets; however, they each sustained serious head injuries.

A few months after the accident, the plaintiffs received notice that the helmets they had worn during the crash were recalled. The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against several parties who manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold the helmets and motorcycle. The plaintiffs claimed that a defective tire caused the accident, and that their injuries were worsened because the helmets were defective.

When someone purchases a Maryland auto insurance policy, the insured must provide the insurance company with the make and model of each vehicle that they want to be insured. Typically, people choose to purchase insurance on each of their vehicles; however, it is not uncommon for a vehicle owner to choose not to name a vehicle in a policy. This may be because the vehicle is used only seasonally or is used exclusively by someone who is away on military leave or at college.

When an insurance company writes a policy, the coverage will generally extend to all vehicles named under the policy. However, if a policyholder chooses not to name a vehicle in the policy, the insurance company will likely exclude that vehicle from coverage. This is commonly referred to as the “owned but not insured” exclusion. A recent case illustrates how this exclusion could impact an injury victim’s ability to recover for their injuries.

According to the court’s opinion, a teenager died after he was involved in a fatal accident while he was operating a 49cc moped. The teenager’s family filed a claim against the at-fault driver’s insurance policy, recovering the policy maximum of $100,000. The teenager’s family also filed an underinsured motorist (UIM) claim against their own insurance carrier, seeking benefits for the loss of their son’s life.

One of the most frustrating aspects of being involved in a Maryland motorcycle accident is dealing with insurance companies. Vehicle insurance is required in Maryland, and for a good reason. However, unfortunately, insurance companies often make the recovery process harder on accident victims by creating additional stress and anxiety.

After being involved in a Maryland motorcycle accident, accident victims often have sustained serious injuries and have missed time away from work. However, life’s expenses do not stop and, when combined with potentially astronomical medical bills, accident victims find themselves in a difficult financial position. Too often, insurance companies prey upon these vulnerabilities be denying a claim they know that the accident victim will not have time to pursue or offering an accident victim a low-ball settlement offer in hopes of making the case go away.

A recent case illustrates the lengths that insurance companies will go to in an attempt to avoid financial responsibility for an accident.

Continue reading ›