Answer:
I was recently asked by someone who was involved in a bike collision about fault. They were riding their bicycle and collided with a motor vehicle, and fault in this situation was kind of in dispute. The client, who was the cyclist, may have had some fault in that situation. The problem is, the bicyclist was much more severely injured, which is very common in these types of scenarios. Common sense just tells us that a motor vehicle is a lot heavier, moves a lot faster, and is going to create more force than a person riding a bicycle, so usually it’s the bicyclist who ends up being more severely injured. Thank God, in this situation, the person wasn’t killed.
On the question of whether that bicyclist has a claim, even though the other side may assert the bicyclist had some portion of fault in what happened, the answer is, yes, absolutely, the injured bicyclist has a claim. In Mississippi, we have what’s called pure comparative fault. The rules for this, I have to say, vary significantly from state to state. It is absolutely important and critical that, if you have been injured in this type of scenario, you get an attorney to help walk you through that process. You need an attorney who understands the law in the context of the location where the case will be brought because the claim potentially could be brought places other than where the actual collision happened. For instance, it could be brought in the state where the defendant lives. Wherever that suit is being brought, it’s going to be critical that the attorney representing you be aware of and understand the apportionment of fault rules in that state.
Using Mississippi as an example, we have what is called pure comparative fault. What that means is that when multiple parties are involved in an incident, ultimately, a jury will decided is who is at fault and by what percentage. For instance, in the scenario between the bicyclist and the car, if a jury decided, for instance, that the car was 100% at fault, then the car driver would be 100% responsible for the injuries to that bicyclist. If the car was 75% at fault, but the bicyclist had some fault and is 25% responsible, under pure comparative fault, say, if the bicyclist had $100,000 for the claim, the car would be responsible for $75,000 of that or 75%; the bicyclist would have to take responsibility themselves for the other 25% or $25,000.
In states that do not have pure comparative fault, the plaintiff, if they have a portion of fault, may be precluded, sometimes entirely, from a recovery. For instance, there are scenarios in some states where if the bicyclist is just one percent or five percent at fault, and the car is 99% or 95% at fault, the bicyclist cannot bring a claim. They would be barred because they helped contribute to the collision. In other scenarios, the plaintiff can collect as long as that plaintiff, which would be the bicyclist, is less than 50% at fault. As long as they were less than half at fault, and the other party or parties combined were 50% or more at fault, then the plaintiff in this scenario, the bicyclist, could bring a claim.
Under a pure comparative fault situation such as we have in Mississippi, even in a scenario where the bicyclist is more than half at fault, they can still collect at that percentage.
It gets complicated in terms of trying to think through these issues. For attorneys who do this on a regular basis, who litigate and who understand the local rules and laws governing apportionment, it is pretty straightforward. That’s why you need an attorney and why you need someone who is familiar, not only with these types of claims, but also with that local venue where you’re going to be filing suit. At Brad Morris Law Firm, we handle these cases. Understand, if you’ve been injured in a scenario where you were riding a bicycle or a family member was and was hit by a motor vehicle, we’re here to help. Just reach out to us by phone or through our website, and we will try to answer your questions and get you the help that you need.
