Comparative fault in bicycle accidents determines how compensation is allocated when both the driver and cyclist share responsibility for a collision. Understanding how these rules apply helps cyclists assess their claims and anticipate defenses.
What Is Comparative Fault?
Comparative fault (comparative negligence) apportions responsibility between parties who contributed to an accident. If both the driver and cyclist were negligent, each bears a percentage of fault, and compensation is adjusted accordingly.
For example, if a cyclist suffers $100,000 in damages but is found 25% at fault, recovery would be reduced to $75,000 (damages minus their fault percentage).
Types of Comparative Fault Systems
States follow different systems with varying effects on cyclist recovery:
Pure comparative fault (California, New York, Florida) allows recovery regardless of fault percentage. Even a cyclist 80% at fault can recover 20% of damages.
Modified comparative fault (50% bar) allows recovery only if the cyclist's fault is less than 50%. At 50% or more, recovery is barred.
Modified comparative fault (51% bar) allows recovery if fault is 50% or less. At 51% or more, recovery is barred.
A few states follow contributory negligence, barring any recovery if the cyclist bears even 1% fault.
Common Cyclist Fault Allegations
Drivers and insurers frequently allege cyclist negligence. Common allegations include failure to use bike lanes where available, riding against traffic or on sidewalks illegally, running stop signs or red lights, lack of lights or reflective gear at night, failure to signal turns, and unpredictable movements or lane changes.
Evaluating Fault Arguments
Not all fault allegations have merit. Cyclists have equal rights to roadways, and many alleged violations are legal or do not contribute to accidents. For example:
Riding outside bike lanes is legal in most situations (turning, avoiding hazards, lane position for visibility). Failure to wear a helmet is not illegal in most states for adults and may not be considered negligence. Cyclists may legally "take the lane" in many circumstances.
Evidence countering fault claims includes documentation of proper lane position, signal use, lighting equipment, and compliance with traffic laws.
Driver Fault Despite Cyclist Negligence
Even when cyclists bear some fault, drivers often bear majority responsibility. Drivers have duties to watch for all road users, maintain safe speeds, and yield appropriately. A driver who strikes a cyclist typically failed fundamental duties regardless of cyclist conduct.
The last clear chance doctrine in some states holds that even if the cyclist was negligent, a driver who had the opportunity to avoid the accident bears responsibility for failing to do so.
Impact on Settlement Negotiations
Insurers use comparative fault arguments to reduce settlement offers. They may exaggerate cyclist fault or cite violations that did not actually contribute to the accident. Strong evidence of proper cycling behavior and documentation of driver negligence counters these tactics.
Jury Determinations
If cases go to trial, juries allocate fault percentages based on evidence presented. Effective presentation of driver negligence while explaining cyclist conduct influences outcomes. Anti-cyclist bias among some jurors makes careful jury selection important.
If you face comparative fault allegations after a bicycle accident, consult with an attorney to evaluate the claims and protect your right to compensation.