Bicycle Accident Complaint

BICYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — ARIZONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. General Factual Allegations
4. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
5. Count II — Negligence Per Se (Against Defendant Driver)
6. Count III — Negligent Entrustment / Vicarious Liability (Against Defendant Owner)
7. Damages
8. Prayer for Relief
9. Jury Demand
10. Reservation of Rights
11. Signature and Service Blocks
12. Verification
13. Certificate of Service
14. Arizona Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

CASE NO. [________________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (BICYCLE COLLISION)

(Tort — Motor Vehicle)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, for causes of action against Defendants, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is and at all material times was a resident of [COUNTY] County, Arizona, and at all material times was lawfully operating a bicycle upon the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY / STATE] who at all material times operated the subject motor vehicle and may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS].

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / an LLC] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, and/or maintained the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant and/or employed Driver Defendant. Owner Defendant may be served through its statutory agent at [STATUTORY AGENT / ADDRESS].

4. Fictitious Defendants John/Jane Does I–X and Black & White Corporations I–X are persons or entities whose true identities are presently unknown to Plaintiff and who negligently caused or contributed to the Collision and Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff will amend to substitute their true names when ascertained.

5. This action arises under Arizona tort law for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a bicyclist, in [COUNTY] County, Arizona, on [__/__/____].

6. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14 and A.R.S. § 12-123, as the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the justice and municipal courts.

7. Venue is proper in this county under A.R.S. § 12-401 because the Collision occurred in this county and/or one or more Defendants resides in this county.

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully operating a bicycle traveling [northbound / southbound / etc.] on [ROADWAY] at or near its intersection with [CROSS STREET / LANDMARK / MILEPOST], in [CITY], Arizona (the "Collision").

9. Plaintiff was riding in a lawful and prudent manner — [as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway / within a marked bicycle lane / lawfully occupying the lane where conditions required] — consistent with A.R.S. § 28-815, and, to the extent the Collision occurred during darkness, Plaintiff's bicycle was equipped with a lighted front lamp and rear reflector as contemplated by A.R.S. § 28-817.

10. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] owned by Owner Defendant.

11. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight].

12. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., overtook and passed Plaintiff's bicycle without leaving at least three feet of clearance and struck or sideswiped Plaintiff ("unsafe pass"); turned right across Plaintiff's path of travel ("right hook"); turned left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming bicycle ("left cross"); opened a parked vehicle's door into Plaintiff's path ("dooring"); failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection; followed Plaintiff's bicycle too closely and struck it from the rear; pulled out from a private drive or side street into Plaintiff's path].

13. Although Plaintiff and Plaintiff's bicycle were plainly visible, Driver Defendant failed to see Plaintiff in time, misjudged Plaintiff's speed, position, and distance, and/or failed to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway.

14. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was operating the bicycle in a lawful, prudent, and careful manner at all material times. At no time did Plaintiff do, or fail to do, anything that proximately caused or contributed to the Collision.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected road user exposed to the full mass and force of a motor vehicle — was thrown from the bicycle and sustained severe, painful, and permanent bodily injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., orthopedic fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, road rash / degloving, and disfiguring scarring].

16. Because a bicyclist has no enclosure, restraint system, or crumple zone, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of enclosed vehicles.

17. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

18. All injuries and damages alleged were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 18 as if fully set forth herein.

20. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the Arizona Rules of the Road, to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, to overtake and pass a bicyclist only by leaving a safe distance of at least three feet, and to refrain from conduct endangering others.

21. Driver Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for Plaintiff's plainly visible bicycle;
• Overtaking and passing Plaintiff's bicycle without leaving a safe distance of at least three feet;
• Turning right across the path of Plaintiff's bicycle ("right hook") when it was unsafe to do so;
• Turning left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming bicycle ("left cross") when it was unsafe to do so;
• Opening, or causing to be opened, a vehicle door into the path of Plaintiff's bicycle when it was unsafe to do so ("dooring");
• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff;
• Following Plaintiff's bicycle more closely than was reasonable and prudent;
• Operating the vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent for conditions;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive; and
• Failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

22. Each of the foregoing acts and omissions, separately and in combination, was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

23. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 7 below.

5. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Against Defendant Driver)

24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 23 as if fully set forth herein.

25. The Arizona Rules of the Road impose specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of persons lawfully using the roadway, including bicyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• A.R.S. § 28-812 — a person riding a bicycle on a roadway or shoulder is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, confirming that Plaintiff was a lawful user of the roadway entitled to the protection of the Rules of the Road;
• A.R.S. § 28-735 — a driver overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance of not less than three feet between the vehicle and the bicycle until safely past the bicycle;
• A.R.S. § 28-772 — a driver within an intersection intending to turn left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle (including a bicycle) approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard;
• A.R.S. § 28-771 — when two vehicles approach an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield to the vehicle on the right;
• A.R.S. § 28-773 — a driver approaching a stop sign shall stop and yield to vehicles within or approaching the intersection so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard;
• A.R.S. § 28-774 — a driver about to enter or cross a highway from a private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all closely approaching vehicles; and
• A.R.S. § 28-730 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent.

26. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

27. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se under Arizona law, and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

6. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT / VICARIOUS LIABILITY (Against Defendant Owner)

28. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27 as if fully set forth herein.

29. Owner Defendant entrusted the subject vehicle to Driver Defendant when Owner Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Driver Defendant was an incompetent, inexperienced, reckless, or otherwise unfit driver.

30. Alternatively, at the time of the Collision, Driver Defendant was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant and within the course and scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

31. Owner Defendant's negligent entrustment and/or vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. DAMAGES

32. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following:

• Past and future medical expenses — emergency, ambulance, hospital, surgical, diagnostic, rehabilitative, pharmaceutical, and physician care;
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, prosthetics, and long-term or attendant care, to be proven at trial;
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity — past lost income and the permanent impairment of Plaintiff's ability to earn;
• Physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish — past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to the bicycle, cycling gear, helmet, electronics, and personal effects, including loss of use and diminution in value.

33. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative.

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendants as follows:

• A. General and special compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. Punitive damages, if and to the extent the evidence supports an award;
• C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• D. Taxable costs of suit incurred herein; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

9. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 38.

10. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add or substitute parties (including fictitious Defendants), to assert additional claims (including a claim for punitive damages upon a showing of the requisite aggravated conduct), and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds.

11. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

DATED this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: /s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

State Bar No. [________]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

12. VERIFICATION

STATE OF ARIZONA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], declare under penalty of perjury that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing action; that I have read the foregoing Complaint; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT was served (or will be served together with the summons) upon the following by [personal service under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1 / 4.2 / process server / the court's electronic filing system]:

[NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) OF DEFENDANT(S) / COUNSEL]

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME / PARALEGAL]

14. ARIZONA PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in Arizona must be commenced within two years of accrual. A.R.S. § 12-542. Confirm accrual and any tolling (minority under A.R.S. § 12-502, discovery rule) before filing.
• PUBLIC-ENTITY DEADLINES — do not miss. If any defendant is a public entity or public employee (e.g., a government-owned vehicle, transit operator, or a roadway/bike-lane design or maintenance claim), Arizona requires a written notice of claim served within 180 days of accrual (A.R.S. § 12-821.01), and suit must be filed within one year (A.R.S. § 12-821). A defective or late notice bars the claim.
• Court and jurisdiction. File a catastrophic-injury bicycle case in the Superior Court (Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14; A.R.S. § 12-123). Use the county caption.
• PURE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE. Arizona applies pure comparative fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505: the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's own percentage of fault but is never barred — a plaintiff found 99% at fault may still recover 1%. The sole exception is that there is no comparative-negligence right for a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury. Fault is allocated among all parties and non-parties under A.R.S. § 12-2506 (several liability), so identify and name all responsible actors.
• The cyclist's rights and duties. A.R.S. § 28-812 grants a bicyclist all the rights and subjects the bicyclist to all the duties of a vehicle driver. Reciprocal cyclist duties include riding as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge (with recognized exceptions for hazards, turns, passing, and narrow lanes) (A.R.S. § 28-815) and operating with a lighted front lamp and rear reflector at night (A.R.S. § 28-817). A violation of the cyclist's own duties supplies the comparative-fault theory, but it only reduces recovery — it does not bar it.
• Three-foot safe passing. Arizona has a numeric three-foot passing statute, A.R.S. § 28-735, enacted in 2000. Its civil penalties (§ 28-735(B)) are penalties, not the measure of damages, and § 28-735(C) carves out a cyclist injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bike lane or path was present and passable — anticipate that defense where a bike lane was available, but the three-foot violation remains powerful negligence-per-se evidence.
• Helmet non-use generally inadmissible. Arizona has no statewide adult bicycle-helmet requirement (some municipalities require helmets for riders under 18). Evidence or argument that an adult cyclist was not wearing a helmet is generally inadmissible to establish comparative fault or to reduce damages; move in limine to exclude it. Verify the current Arizona evidentiary rule.
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. A bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own automobile UM/UIM coverage — and under the UM/UIM coverage of a resident relative's policy — because cyclists are typically "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes. UM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle, subject to prompt-reporting requirements. Identify and notify every applicable policy promptly, preserve the UM/UIM claim, and comply with consent-to-settle / subrogation procedures before resolving the liability claim. Verify the current requirements.
• No damages cap. Article II, § 31 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits statutory caps on personal-injury damages. Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of an "evil mind"; plead them only where supported.
• Service. Service of process is governed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1 (in-state) and 4.2 (out-of-state); serve a corporate or LLC defendant through its statutory agent.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Arizona Revised Statutes (Title 12 — Courts and Civil Proceedings; Title 28 — Transportation) — https://www.azleg.gov/arstitle/
• A.R.S. § 12-542 (two-year limitations) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00542.htm
• A.R.S. § 12-2505 (comparative negligence) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02505.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-812 (applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00812.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-735 (overtaking bicycles; civil penalties — three feet) — https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00735.htm
• A.R.S. § 28-772, § 28-771, § 28-773, § 28-774 (right-of-way); § 28-730 (following too closely)
• A.R.S. § 28-815 (riding on roadway / bike path); § 28-817 (bicycle equipment)
• A.R.S. § 12-821.01, § 12-821 (notice of claim and limitations against public entities)
• Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 4.1, 4.2, 8, 38)
• Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Civil) — Negligence; Comparative Fault

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in Arizona must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.