Being Sued!

[dlkksk8fan]

Last summer my son, who is 20yrs old, hit a bicyclist. The bicyclist was riding up a hill in a construction zone where the bike lane was closed. The city had posted 3 warning signs that the bike lane was closed and pointed to a alternate route. Unfortunately my son and the bike were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The road was down to two lanes and a driver could not see past a certain point because there was a curve in the road and the barrier was about 12 feet high. The bike was in the right hand car lane and my son was traveling at about 40 miles (posted speed limit was 45). As he rounded the curve all of a sudden there was a bike. He avoided hitting her with his car, but clipped her elbow with his side view mirror. The force caused to lose balance on her bike and down she went. My son stopped and came back to the accident and helped the lady get out of the road. She was with another bicyclist who wasn't hurt. The police came and no one was cited. A ambulance took her to the hospital where she had a cut on her elbow that needed stitches. No broken bones or any other injuries were noted. We figured our insurance company would settle with her and we would be done with it. However she got a Attorney and at first he demanded that we pay his client $180,000.00. According to her her life now has drastically changed and she can not longer live the life she once did! Basically our insurance offered her $35,000.00 to settle and they came back with a lawsuit for $360,000.00!!
I've never been sued before so it is a very scary situation.

For those who have kids driving, here is a little advice. When they turn 18 get them off your insurance policy and make sure their car is in their name.

 

[Tonichelle]

yikes...

it doesn't sound to me like she has a leg to stand on, for crying outloud she WASN"T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!

My best friend had a similar situation (though she did hit the biker) but he was actually cited by police because he broke the rules...

I hate money hungry people (which is what this sounds like)

 

[Mathman]

The lawyers will work it out with the insurance company. The insurance company will drag it out in the courts as long as possible, then offer a little more. As long as you have liability insurance, you have nothing to worry about personally.

 

[SeaniBu]

The lawyers will work it out with the insurance company. The insurance company will drag it out in the courts as long as possible, then offer a little more. As long as you have liability insurance, you have nothing to worry about personally.

From the above I got the notion the insurance companies are no longer in the picture. But either way, attorneys are attorneys period, and that is a good guess of what will happen.

Personally though your insurance rates will go up and your son will be such an outrageous amount that you will have to drop him or your IC will tell you to drop him.

That is to bad to hear, be thankful you don't live in Boulder or you would not have a chance and likely be sued for more.

it doesn't sound to me like she has a leg to stand on, for crying outloud she WASN"T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!

Not necessarily. Some laws in some states differ, but a bike is basically a pedestrian, and as we all should know if you run over a pedestrian even if they are J-wakling is is highly likely you will be found at fault. If there is a common message of they shouldn't... so I did" people will quickly find vehicular homicide as a accusation in court. That is not rational but as we know people get carried away with ideas and think they know vs acutely know become heavily skewed in this society. If there was no ticket issued at the scene to the cyclist, just forget about trying to prove they were at fault. It won't happen.

Due to the fact an attorney is pursuing this, I would be inclined to think they have fully reviewed the circumstances and the cyclist had every right to be there. Unless they were riding in pairs / side by side they are not doing anything illegal. They pay city / state taxes and may have a car as well to directly pay road taxes. This entitles a Bicycle to the right hand lane in Boulder County - not just the shoulder, the whole right lane. If there is no shoulder they have the right to use it as a car would as long as they are not intentionally blocking traffic. "Alternate / suggested" routs are exactly that, they don't HAVE to. And from a point of view of "car vs Bike" it is in the safety interest to give rights to cyclists. Realize that they acutely have to use body energy to get around, where as a car you only have to push the peddle, to have a motorist say anything like "they are in my way" show impatience and irrational thought. It will come down to your son could have waited for a better opportunity to pass. Sorry but that is going to be a deciding factor.

I know that cyclists get carried away - just like motorists - and give a lot of us a bad name. And even though there was a fault of someone it still comes down to the one "in the big thing that can kill easily" and the message it sends to other motorists.

It might not be what you want to hear, and the cyclist maybe totally in the wrong, but that is past now and I suggest taking the sole approach of "the lawsuit is a totally unreasonable amount" and try to get it reduced. Also agree and show remorse - play it up - and don't show any anger at any part of the entire proceedings. Get an Attorney and they will approach it as "prove your life has been altered" and possibly some witnesses to testify they have seen the girl doing exactly that in which she says she can not do anymore. Do not - and I am sure the attorney will also direct - do not try a defamation (can be false or true but malicious is as well) of their character but show delusion with-in their accusation and hope for the best.

They are going to say your son is not skilled at driving or does not show proper knowledge of the vehicle size hence he is endangering the public. True or not, the plaintiff has the upper hand right now.

Ask yourself, could he just have waited to pass. Nothing more to the question. Just that by itself. Now you see why they know they can and will sue with success. It is just that simple.

Sorry this happened, I like your suggestion of getting them off your insurance but it sounds like you will lose some money - I just hope it isn't to much.

And BIKES remember too, it is SHARE THE ROAD, NOT own the road. It works both ways. Nothing I hate more than a self righteous cyclist - well those skateboard punks bug me too.

Also it could be possible to show that the cyclist is exploiting the system, but that is soooo far fetched there is going to have to be something said or "slipped" during the proceedings to prove it even in the slightest. That is really dreaming, but I don't doubt that they are "exploiting" due to her originally planning on taking the settlement from the insurance. I think she is trying to pull a fast one from the sounds of it, but your son might be at total fault too as far as I know. I have only heard "his" side of the story. And it does not sound like he / you will win this case regardless.

Sorry to be realistic with my POV on the topic. I wish the best and hope this doesn't "hurt" to bad.

All the best that can be expected,
Sean
eta, I just saw you are in San Diego, this is even more likely that the bicyclist is totally in the right to be where they were and the case will go to the cyclist. Bummer.

 

[Tonichelle]

just because there was no citation given that doesn't mean they weren't at fault... who knows why the officer didn't...

kinda like the 'hidden' rule that police officers don't ticket each other when one is speeding off duty - and that in turn is also for their immediate families...

and just because a lawyer is involved doesn't mean that they are 'right' ... it just means they found a loophole... there are so many ambulence chasers anymore that lawyer's are seen as jokes...

unless this woman was an elbow model (and therefore will lose contracts from any possible scar) I don't see why 15 stitches require so much of someone else's $$... it makes no sense!

I don't care how awesome the idea of cycling is - you either follow the rules, or don't come crying later when something happens. It is just as much her fault if not more if she gets run down if she's biking where she shouldn't. It's commen sense. No one else should be punished for her lapse in judgement. He was going below the speed limit and he hit her in a blind spot...

Arrogant cyclists make me cringe... I like to bike in the summer too. On the bike paths... not in the middle of the road... or where I'm not wanted.

 

[dlkksk8fan]

From the above I got the notion the insurance companies are no longer in the picture.

The insurance company is still in the picture. So we are hoping they will settle under our liability limit.

Due to the fact an attorney is pursuing this, I would be inclined to think they have fully reviewed the circumstances and the cyclist had every right to be there.

Not exactly true. On the attorney's report there are some inaccuracies. He quotes that my son was 18 yrs old and clearly an inexperienced driver. They have my husband present in the car at the time of the accident. He says his client was hysterical, my son says she was crying, but not hysterical. She states she was employed at the time, when in fact she wasn't. She had surgery 2 months later (to repair a small torn ligament) supposedly due to the accident, yet before the surgery she went on vacation and boogie boarded. The claims go on and on. Can't do yoga,play the flute & piano. Can not longer train like she use to, etc,etc.........all this from the cut on her elbow and torn ligiment is not longer a problem.

The bottom line is that a bicyclist can be on the road in a car lane. And as drivers we must drive at a safe speed to avoid any type of collision. The problem with the road at the time was there was no bike lane so the cyclist had to be in the car lane. Unfortunately it was a blind curve where one could not see what was ahead until right at the moment. It is hard to avoid something you cannot see. A hugh SUV would have wiped her right out, luckily my son's car is a Honda and not that big.

 

[SeaniBu]

just because there was no citation given that doesn't mean they weren't at fault... who knows why the officer didn't...

I said that Toni, and agree. The fact is they didn't, moot.

and just because a lawyer is involved doesn't mean that they are 'right' ... it just means they found a loophole... there are so many ambulence chasers anymore that lawyer's are seen as jokes...

you are repeating me with different and fewer words.

unless this woman was an elbow model (and therefore will lose contracts from any possible scar) I don't see why 15 stitches require so much of someone else's $$... it makes no sense!

Yep, they need to prove from both sides. I AGREE, but that is not what is going to happen or IS happening. And we still only can assume that the Teenage boy driving is being 100% honest. The court WILL NOT TAKE THIS APROCH.

I don't care how awesome the idea of cycling is - you either follow the rules, or don't come crying later when something happens. It is just as much her fault if not more if she gets run down if she's biking where she shouldn't. It's commen sense. No one else should be punished for her lapse in judgement. He was going below the speed limit and he hit her in a blind spot...

First, please tell me you don't drive - that is not where the "blind spot" is.
Second, it is not someone fault enough to get run down for making a mistake, that attitude is why they immediately assume the cyclist is in the right. Because motorist have that mentality which is basically Homicidal. You are scaring me T.
Third, and who the heck are we to say we should punish her "physically" for a laps in judgment that is still total speculation and from the sounds of it - I reiterate, SHE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE THERE IN A SINGLE FILE ON A ROAD WAY (not highway unless designated, etc..)

Arrogant cyclists make me cringe... I like to bike in the summer too. On the bike paths... not in the middle of the road... or where I'm not wanted.

Agree, but even by accounts in the afore mentioned there is NO indication she was at all being arrogant at the time of the incident. It acutely sounds like dlkksk8fan's Son was taking you attitude of shouldn't be there anyway and felt self-righteous himself and became impatient and cause dan accident.
Sorry dlkksk8fan, but the way it sounds is not good.

Toni I think you are right around his age too, is that right, and that does seem to be the sentiment of bikes and cars, but a car kills easily and takes little energy to operate. It is not unreasonable that through a construction zone a driver of a potentially dangerous object should proceed with caution and exhibit patients when regarding public safety. He tried passing when he could not is all it comes down to. Extenuating circumstance all you want, all he had to do is wait or even honk. It don't matter what you think, it is think. Rules are rules, and what is a "doesn't belong there" attitude to one is a "doesn't belong there" to another. One of those EASILY KILLS. I know the "wild west" of Alaska is a little more in the 60s 70s law enforcement mentality, but there are reasons that has changed elsewhere.

So simple
You are the judge
Girl bikes down construction area instead of taking suggested path to save energy and felt she had the right to (legally she does / did) and is hit.

Boy passes bike in construction zone and hits her by misjudging distance between vehicle and cyclist. He harms cyclist.

All this Could have, does not fly in court either. It is what happened that matters. Sorry to say it again. The Boy driving car was MORE IN THE WRONG than the girl riding her bike. That is facts that will designate the outcome regardless of what we think.

 

[Mathman]

Donna, this is completely standard procedure. The plaintiff's lawyers claim everything they can possibly think of, the insurance company refuses to pay as long as possible, the judge says "go away and settle this," and the plaintiff's lawyers eventually take whatever they can get out of the insurance company (keeping a third to a half of it for themselves).

 

[SeaniBu]

The insurance company is still in the picture. So we are hoping they will settle under our liability limit.

Yours is but is hers still? Or did she "turn it over to a private attorney?"

The claims go on and on. Can't do yoga,play the flute & piano. Can not longer train like she use to, etc,etc.........all this from the cut on her elbow and torn ligiment is not longer a problem.

I totally believe she is taking advantage of the situation, but she will, and win 95% sure.

The bottom line is that a bicyclist can be on the road in a car lane. And as drivers we must drive at a safe speed to avoid any type of collision.

That is truly all that will matter when it comes down to it. The construction zone relegates EVEN MORE care be proceeded with and that is all that will be seen. Their attorney can have facts wrong within the story, but the facts and outcome of actions are the true deciding factors.

 

[dlkksk8fan]

Donna, this is completely standard procedure. The plaintiff's lawyers claim everything they can possibly think of, the insurance company refuses to pay as long as possible, the judge says "go away and settle this," and the plaintiff's lawyers eventually take whatever they can get out of the insurance company (keeping a third to a half of it for themselves).

The waiting to settle this is killing me (and my husband). We can only sit back and wait.

 

[Jhar55]

You have one year to file a claim after an accident and once you settle with the insurance company you can't come back after more. That what my lawyer told me after I was in an accident 4 years ago. Let the insurance and lawyers work it out thats what you pay them for.

 

[Mathman]

The waiting to settle this is killing me (and my husband). We can only sit back and wait.

That is the worst part. It could take years. The insurance company reasons like this. We can pay 50,000 now, or we can stall for five years and pay $75,000 -- same difference, actuarily speaking. So it's a game -- the insurance company will gradually raise its offer, in a strictly calculated way, until the plaintiff gets tired of waiting and says, oh, just give me the money.

The insurance company must pay whatever judgment comes down, up to the limit of the policy, and it doesn't matter who is at fault. The lawyers will not ask (in the real negotiations) for more than the insurance company is obligated to pay -- for the simple reason that the insurance company is the one with the deep pockets, not the individual that they are nominally suing.

All of this is quite nerve-wracking to the people who are caught in the middle. But there is a good chance that you won't even have to go to court. Hang in there.

 

[Tonichelle]

when I speak of a blind spot this:

The road was down to two lanes and a driver could not see past a certain point because there was a curve in the road and the barrier was about 12 feet high.

is what I'm talking about.

the fact is there were signs saying don't bike... the biking lane was gone... the driver is not at fault, he didn't see her in the blind spot and she should not have been there

Cars kill people, no flipping kidding. I'm well aware of that, but so is the cyclist... it's extremely arrogant to ignore the warnings and continue through and not expect that you're going to get in a sticky situation.

And yes, I do drive. And I have a clear driving record. And no I've never hit a person, and don't ever plan to...

I'm not saying mow down everyone in sight but I get really tired of people being in the wrong just blowing through because they happen to be the one that got hurt.

she's being allowed to take advantage because the big bad car was where it should be... where as she wasn't. - yeah the bike path was there once, it wasn't during construction: enter at your own risk.

 

[SeaniBu]

Sorry Toni, didn't mean to make you mad.

when I speak of a blind spot this: is what I'm talking about.

OK, and that part of the story did not make sense anyway, for another part said he saw her....so not sure how the corner had anything to do with the accident if he saw her. Was he trying to pass her in a limited visibility corner? Not sure.

the fact is there were signs saying don't bike..

What? Where,I did not and am not reading that in post one? Bike path / lane closed has not much to do with it for we have established the law is the bike is also aloud to use the right lane of traffic. Again she had every right to be there, this is established in the discussion.

Cars kill people, no flipping kidding. I'm well aware of that, but so is the cyclist... it's extremely arrogant to ignore the warnings and continue through and not expect that you're going to get in a sticky situation.

Maybe you are missing the parts I am saying she is milking this thing, taking advantage of, etc... I don't think she is proceeding about this correctly, but the accident is more than 80% the fault of the driver of the car. If I heard "she suddenly swerved, or popped a tire, then I might start thinking differently, but she is on a bike, where she is aloud, someone tried to pass her and it caused an accident.

Fundamentally speaking, she was there first. EOS

And yes, I do drive. And I have a clear driving record. And no I've never hit a person, and don't ever plan to...

Again I apologize for the comments made toward you and I gave no indication I was light hearted about them in particular and feel bad I may have offended you.

I'm not saying mow down everyone in sight but I get really tired of people being in the wrong just blowing through because they happen to be the one that got hurt.

The thing is, she was not wrong, it was an accident which usually means that there were a few factors involved, the thing her is the car was responsible for the accident after she had made the decision to enter the zone and the driver hit her then. He saw her and whether he had to decide to make a mistake compounding her mistake (that had not caused issue yet) and this did cause the problem. Him entering the situation was the reason the accident occurred.

she's being allowed to take advantage because the big bad car was where it should be... where as she wasn't. - yeah the bike path was there once, it wasn't during construction: enter at your own risk.

The car did not need to pass, She could be there if she wants to and even if there is the thought enter at your own risk, the laws of the road do not concur with this theory. That again promotes homicidal driving. NOT say that is you at all, but there are people who would take advantage of that.

Situation back in the 90s here in Boulder where a man committed suicide by jumping off and overpass. the first 2 cars that hit him had no response time. They could not respond quickly enough. The last car to hit him was 4 seconds after the first hits. No skid marks, witness state no breaklights, no attempt to avoid. The driver said, I didn't know what it was and was told not to swerve in a situation like that. Well they didn't swerve, true, but they didn't even attempt to avoid by slowing down. They were ticked and license was revoked for two years. Now that I am not sure I could ever agree with, but it does fit the perimeters of the law. Careless driving. They had time to react and didn't. Even though the car still would have hit the body, they still didn't make an attempt to avoid it at all.

The driver had a choice to make in this situation. It was not the right one. OOps and I am sure he is not that happy about it. Bike had a choice to, but it was made BEFORE the cars choice and regardless of the original wrong, the second wrong is what caused the accident.

I so agree with your sentiment of being sick of crud like that happening, but someone screwing up does not scape the second one. Particularly when it WAS AVOIDABLE. Let's take the Christian veiw on this. Could he have forgiven her for her mistake and used patients and waited for a safer opportunity to pass? Yes he could have avoided the situation, she may have started it, but never the less the last one to flaw is the one that made it an issue. It was not an issue other than inconvenience prior. And once again, she had every right to be there.

Her suing IMO is totally wrong, but it is not because she did something wrong. It is because she did not truly suffer and Donnas son was not doing this intentionally. She now is doing something wrong, but the day of the accident she did not.

 

[dlkksk8fan]

OK, and that part of the story did not make sense anyway, for another part said he saw her....so not sure how the corner had anything to do with the accident if he saw her. Was he trying to pass her in a limited visibility corner

He only saw her after the fact in his rear view mirror. There was no time to avoid hitting her. There was no corner. It was a two lane street that curves around. If there was no barrier there he could have seen her up ahead, however the barrier blocked the view up ahead. There was enough room for two cars, that's all. I documented the road with my video camera. She was in the car lane on a blind curve going about 7mph up the hill.

 

[SeaniBu]

He only saw her after the fact in his rear view mirror. There was no time to avoid hitting her. There was no corner. It was a two lane street that curves around. If there was no barrier there he could have seen her up ahead, however the barrier blocked the view up ahead. There was enough room for two cars, that's all. I documented the road with my video camera. She was in the car lane on a blind curve going about 7mph up the hill.

Well, that sounds like the construction layout might be to blame. We call them C-Dot here - can't remember the name from when I was in Cali, what about the approach of; they might have had caused this by poorly engineering the temporary by-pass.... ah never mind, you'll never get the gov. to take the wrap. And we should not forget the "car lane" is the bike lane as well - for the bike "path" was closed, so when there is not a bike "path" the road.... no need to rehash the law already discussed.
this does not sound good if I remove myself from bias (which I have for you) BTW.
-"There was enough room for two cars, that's all. I documented the road with my video camera. She was in the car lane on a blind curve going about 7mph up the hill." -
That sounds like it was so obvious that there was not enough room to pass her so it should have never been attempted. ????
Also seeing the fact you said in the first post that it was the side view mirror that knocked her down. - "...but clipped her elbow with his side view mirror" the course of events just sounds off from the description. I don't mean that badly - I do it all the time - but it is hard to say what really happened from what has been stated in this thread. But all of them sound as though your son was at fault. I DO NOT want to say that but it is fairly evident. Her suing does not stand well with me, but the facts seem to say - couldn't see, didn't see until, my son and the bike were in the wrong place at the wrong time, a bicyclist can be on the road in a car lane, there was no bike lane so the cyclist had to be in the car lane.... I just sounds that way I guess.

I see this happening -
Driving along and come upon a construction zone slowing below the suggested speed limit. Entering the zone requires taking a slight corner that has a obstructed view on the right hand side of the road. On entering your son saw a bicycle and tried to slowdown for he was unsure of the ability to pass them leaving ample room and safety. By the time the car had slowed the cyclist was next to the car and their elbow hit the sideview mirror causing a crash.

Not so bad.

As far as how to address the law suit, I would try to take control of that as much as you can as far as direction. Inevitably they will settle and their compensation is your rate. Law is simplicity complicated. Meaning it is so simple it seems hard to grasp but is not. Spock was the best for making it simple - how silly I just mentioned Spock - the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. If you don't show up they will dictate and theirs is the only concern of interest. That is seeing like the best course of action though. Time trouble, etc....if it comes out saving you 2 grand over 5 years is it worth it?

As unfair as it can possibly seem, it is to hard to fathom trusting a 20 year old's fraction of events. As a Mom I see your point and could trust your view -better than anyones - of your child's sincerity, but if a councilor, judge or jury, - even representative of said insurance company - no way.

 

[Wolfgang]

Ah yes, the old car vs. bike thing......
I used to ride a mountain bike literally everywhere, shopping, commuting between 2 jobs, etc.
Life in North America is tough without a car.......
As far as I know, a bicycle is technically considered a 'vehicle', and is therefore subject to exactly the same rights and regulations as any motorcycle, car, truck, and so forth.
Theoretically, you could do what motorcyclists are taught to do and ride as far to the left in the right hand lane as safely possible, because you are legally entitled to take up the same amount of lane space as anything with a motor.
In reality, you'll be dead if you insist on this right.
When I was leading the bike-only lifestyle (not by choice), I often rode with traffic on high-speed, busy roads (as far to the RIGHT as I could without wiping out in the uneven gutter and slide to a stop amid the health hazard debris), simply because many of the bike trails or bike lanes did not happen to go where I was going.
By virtue of this fact, I had to adopt a sort of 'urban combat' type of biking style.
Certain segments of the local demographic scream at you, try to psych you out by honking just as they're passing you, they throw bottles and other debris, some evenb swerve to see if they can get a belly laugh out of wiping you out.
To their chagrin, this doesn't work on someone who grew up in a city of 2 million rude people.
Then there's the (often senior) part of the population who will simply not acknowledge your very existence.
They will creep along to the far right, whitewall tires scraping the curb, completely oblivious to the cyclist glued to their rear. trying to get somewhere.
I have actually passed such Lincoln Town Cars, Cadillacs, and other similar land yachts on the left because of this.
Or they'll turn literally right in front of you, causing you to lock up your brakes and skid to a sideways stop (hoping not to end up under their tires....), all the while either totally ignorant of the fact that you're even there, or just not giving a flying rats' rear end.
So I can understand why many cyclists hate many drivers.
On the other hand, I did obey traffic laws - aside from ones that would have put my life in immediate danger - which I see many cyclists ignore.
Stop signs, red lights, and other such warning paraphernalia is summarily ignored by probably about 90+ % of the cycling population,riding several abreast (in traffic), also very popular with motorcyclists is par for the course, weaving in between cars is a sport enjoyed by the whole family, and when you get anywhere near the university or a health food store, the sidewalk becomes the street becomes a bike adventure park........
So I can also understand why many drivers hate most bikers.

As for lawyers and insurance companies, they're basically just a bunch of sharks waiting for you to cut yourself.......
The further you can stay away from those indiduals and companies, the better for you.

 

[Blue Bead]

Wow! This is such an unfortunate situation, dlkks8fan!

Was there any signage advising drivers on that section of the roadway that cyclists would be using it as well? I would think it would have been prudent on the part of the city or highway road department to alert the drivers as well as the cyclists that the problem with the bikeway could affect what drivers might have to deal with. In some communities the road department realizes that situations like this can develop and they erect signs warning of that potential for both types of lane users. Essentially it's the best way the city can protect itself against liability issues. I guess I'm wondering if the city may be at fault in its failure to warn motorists of a potential problem, since the signage warned the cyclists specifically rather than both the cyclists and the drivers.

 

[dlkksk8fan]

And we should not forget the "car lane" is the bike lane

As crazy as that sounds it is true. But who would want to compete with a car if you are on a bike? Everyday I took that road (it's a main street) and only saw one poor fool riding up the hill with a kids bike and no helmet. I thought what a idiot since I knew the road up ahead.

you'll never get the gov. to take the wrap.

So true

Also seeing the fact you said in the first post that it was the side view mirror that knocked her down. - "...but clipped her elbow with his side view mirror" the course of events just sounds off from the description. I don't mean that badly - I do it all the time - but it is hard to say what really happened from what has been stated in this thread.

The right side view mirror (which was broken anyway), hit her left elbow. This caused her to wobble back and forth (my son saw it in his rear view mirror) and then fall left onto her left arm. The impact of the mirror on her elbow caused a cut and the fall onto her arm could have caused the ligment damage. The impact didn't throw her off her bike. The bike itself wasn't damaged.

Driving along and come upon a construction zone slowing below the suggested speed limit. Entering the zone requires taking a slight corner that has a obstructed view on the right hand side of the road. On entering your son saw a bicycle and tried to slowdown for he was unsure of the ability to pass them leaving ample room and safety. By the time the car had slowed the cyclist was next to the car and their elbow hit the sideview mirror causing a crash.

It more then a slight corner it's a long curved street (the street is a six lane main hwy). He did not see the bicyclist so had no time to make a decision to move left into the other lane with cars there. If he could have seen the cyclist he would have avoided her (there where actually two cyclist). The bottom line is he is at fault and the lady should be compensated. But for her to demand $380,000 it just doesn't fit the injuries. I still say if you are stupid enough to take a dangerous road knowing there is a safe alternative you should not be compensated for your stupidity.

 

[SeaniBu]

I still say if you are stupid enough to take a dangerous road knowing there is a safe alternative you should not be compensated for your stupidity.

:agree: ITA, just "Dr. Bills." IMO I could see someone sueing if they were hit under normal road conditions, but construction zones are just asking for trouble.

The thing that doesn't sound good, more than any other, is that he didn't see them until they were in the rearview. I can Kinda see that the road may have caused this issue, but if I step outside my bias for you, not seeing them even though their body was at a hight that their elbow could hit the sideview mirror says their upper torso was above the window line. Not to mention right next to the car. Now without doing a Mythbusters reenactment or something, I am not sure there would be many other people that could try and envision this happening. Most might think as "how could he not see her right next to the car?" Especially 2 cyclists not noticed until they were passed. It is possible but it just sounds so unlikely and unless they were there I don't think anyone would believe it - that doesn't know and trust you / your son.

Again good luck and I hope she doesn't get that amount, or anything really that is beyond her Dr bills.