Bicycle Accident Complaint - South Dakota

BICYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — SOUTH DAKOTA

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. Comparative Fault and Helmet Allegations
8. Damages
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Jury Demand
11. Reservation of Rights
12. Signature, Verification, and Service Blocks
13. South Dakota Practice Notes
14. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

IN CIRCUIT COURT

[____] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Civ. No. [________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (BICYCLE COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, complaining of 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, South Dakota, and was lawfully operating a bicycle upon the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, on information and belief, a resident of [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with the Summons and Complaint at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to SDCL § 15-6-4.

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / a limited liability company] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, and/or maintained the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant and/or employed Driver Defendant, and may be served at [SERVICE ADDRESS / REGISTERED AGENT].

4. This action arises under South Dakota tort law for personal injuries and property damage sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a bicyclist, in [COUNTY] County, South Dakota, on [__/__/____].

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to SDCL § 16-6-9 and S.D. Const. art. V, § 5, as the Circuit Court is the court of general civil jurisdiction.

6. Personal jurisdiction is proper because Defendants reside in, do business in, and/or committed the tortious conduct within the State of South Dakota.

7. Venue is proper in this county under SDCL § 15-5-8 because the damages to person and property occurred in, 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 / MILE MARKER], in [CITY], South Dakota (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 (SDCL § 32-20B-5) / within a marked bicycle lane / lawfully occupying the lane where a substandard-width lane or other condition required] — and, to the extent the Collision occurred during darkness, Plaintiff's bicycle was equipped with a lighted front lamp and rear reflector.

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], and the posted speed limit at the location was [____] miles per hour.

12. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., overtook and passed Plaintiff's bicycle without allowing the minimum separation required by SDCL § 32-26-26.1 and sideswiped or struck 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 "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff, 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. All injuries and damages alleged were the foreseeable, natural, and probable consequence of Defendants' conduct.

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

18. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 17 as if fully set forth herein.

19. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the South Dakota rules of the road, to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, to allow the statutory minimum separation when overtaking and passing a bicycle, and to refrain from conduct endangering others.

20. 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 allowing the minimum separation required by SDCL § 32-26-26.1 (three feet at 35 mph or less; six feet above 35 mph);
• 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;
• Driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent for the conditions;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive; and
• Failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

21. 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 described in Section 8 below.

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

22. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 21 as if fully set forth herein.

23. The South Dakota 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:

• SDCL § 32-26-26.1 — a driver of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the same direction shall allow a minimum of three feet of separation if the posted limit is 35 mph or less, and a minimum of six feet of separation if the posted limit is greater than 35 mph, and shall maintain that separation until safely past the overtaken bicycle;
• SDCL § 32-26-19 — a driver intending to turn left within an intersection or into an alley, private road, or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle (including a bicycle) approaching from the opposite direction;
• SDCL § 32-26-13 et seq. — duties of drivers approaching or entering an intersection and at stop or yield signs;
• SDCL § 32-26-40 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent; and
• SDCL ch. 32-25 — a person shall not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.

24. By SDCL § 32-20B-2 and the bicyclist provisions of Chapter 32-20B, a person operating a bicycle is granted the rights and is subject to the duties applicable under the rules of the road, confirming that Plaintiff was a lawful user of the roadway entitled to the protection of those statutes.

25. 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.

26. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE] without lawful excuse or justification. Plaintiff alleges that the violation was a direct and proximate cause of injury to a person the statute was enacted to protect and therefore constitutes negligence per se under South Dakota law. See Hamer v. Duffy, 2026 SD 4, ¶ 31.

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

27. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 26 as if fully set forth herein.

28. 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.

29. 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.

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

7. COMPARATIVE FAULT AND HELMET ALLEGATIONS

31. Slight/gross comparative negligence. Under SDCL § 20-9-2, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery where that negligence was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant; in such case, damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

32. Plaintiff denies any negligence. To the extent the trier of fact attributes any fault to Plaintiff, such fault was at most slight in comparison with the negligence of Driver Defendant and does not bar recovery; any award shall be reduced only in proportion to Plaintiff's contributory negligence.

33. Helmet non-use is not a defense. To the extent Defendants assert or imply that Plaintiff's choice regarding helmet use contributed to the Collision or to the severity of Plaintiff's injuries, such assertion is improper. South Dakota imposes no statewide adult bicycle-helmet requirement, and an adult cyclist's decision to ride without a helmet does not constitute comparative fault and may not be used to reduce recovery.

8. DAMAGES

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and seeks recovery of the following, all subject to proof at trial:

• 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;
• Lost wages and impairment of 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, disability, and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life;
• Property damage to the bicycle, cycling gear, helmet, electronics, and personal effects, including loss of use and diminution in value; and
• Pre-judgment interest where allowed and post-judgment interest pursuant to South Dakota law, and costs of this action.

35. Exemplary (punitive) damages. To the extent the evidence shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that Driver Defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice — actual or presumed — including willful, wanton, or reckless conduct (e.g., [impairment / extreme speed / aggressive "buzzing" of a cyclist]), Plaintiff seeks exemplary damages pursuant to SDCL § 21-3-2.

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

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

• A. Compensatory damages, economic and noneconomic, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. Exemplary (punitive) damages as allowed by law, subject to SDCL § 21-1-4.1 and § 21-3-2;
• C. Pre-judgment interest where allowed and post-judgment interest as provided by law;
• D. Costs and disbursements of this action; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right under the South Dakota Constitution and Rule 38 (SDCL § 15-6-38).

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to SDCL § 15-6-15 to add or substitute parties, to assert additional claims (including loss of consortium where applicable), and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds.

12. SIGNATURE, VERIFICATION, AND SERVICE BLOCKS

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

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY], SD [ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

VERIFICATION (Optional)

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing Complaint; I have read the Complaint; and the factual allegations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public, South Dakota

My Commission Expires: [_______________]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____] I served (or will cause to be served with the Summons) a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the following by [personal service / certified mail pursuant to SDCL § 15-6-4 / electronic service through the Odyssey system]:

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

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME]

13. SOUTH DAKOTA PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in South Dakota must be commenced within three years of accrual. SDCL § 15-2-14(3). Claims against the State or a public entity carry separate notice requirements — verify and calendar early.
• SLIGHT/GROSS COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — the central, unique issue. South Dakota is the only state still applying the slight/gross comparison. Under SDCL § 20-9-2, the cyclist recovers only if the cyclist's negligence was "slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant," in which case damages are reduced proportionally. This is not a 50% bar. Following the 1998 amendment (responding to Woods v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (SD 1997)), the slight/gross comparison is made without disclosing a plaintiff-fault percentage by special interrogatory. Frame any cyclist conduct as "slight" relative to the driver's greater negligence.
• SAFE PASSING — 3 ft / 6 ft. SDCL § 32-26-26.1 requires a minimum three-foot separation when the posted limit is 35 mph or less, and a minimum six-foot separation when the posted limit is greater than 35 mph; the driver must maintain that separation until safely past the cyclist. Note the posted speed limit at the location, as it sets the applicable clearance. A motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle may partially cross the centerline or lane-dividing line if it can be done safely.
• Cyclist rights and duties. Chapter 32-20B governs bicycle operation; § 32-20B-5 requires a cyclist on a roadway, when traveling slower than traffic, to ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge, subject to enumerated exceptions (overtaking, left turns, avoiding hazards, substandard-width lanes). Investigate lane position, conspicuity, lighting, and signal phase to rebut a comparative-fault theory.
• HELMET NON-USE GENERALLY NOT COMPARATIVE FAULT. South Dakota has no statewide adult bicycle-helmet requirement; for an adult cyclist, helmet non-use is generally not comparative fault and should not reduce damages. Move in limine to exclude helmet-non-use evidence and related defense expert opinion. Verify the current evidentiary framework.
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. UM coverage is mandatory (SDCL § 58-11-9); UIM is governed by § 58-11-9.4. A cyclist is typically an "insured" under their own (or a resident relative's) auto policy. UM also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle. Promptly notify and preserve the UM/UIM claim and observe consent-to-settle and subrogation rules.
• Punitive damages. Require clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice (SDCL § 21-3-2), and South Dakota requires a pre-trial prima facie showing under SDCL § 21-1-4.1 before a punitive claim may be submitted to the jury. Plead the predicate conduct expressly.
• Service / commencement. Service is governed by SDCL § 15-6-4. In South Dakota an action is commenced by service of the Summons (SDCL § 15-2-30); coordinate filing and service to satisfy the limitations period.

14. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• South Dakota Codified Laws (official) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes
• SDCL § 15-2-14 (three-year limitations) — https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/15-2-14
• SDCL § 20-9-2 (slight/gross comparative negligence) — https://law.justia.com/codes/south-dakota/title-20/chapter-09/section-20-9-2/
• SDCL § 32-26-26.1 (overtaking bicycle — 3 ft / 6 ft) — https://law.justia.com/codes/south-dakota/title-32/chapter-26/section-32-26-26-1/
• SDCL ch. 32-20B (bicycle regulations); § 32-20B-5 (riding near right-hand curb)
• SDCL § 32-26-19 (turning left), § 32-26-13 et seq. (intersection right-of-way), § 32-26-40 (following too closely); ch. 32-25 (speed)
• SDCL § 21-3-2, § 21-1-4.1 (exemplary damages; pre-trial showing)
• SDCL § 58-11-9 (UM); § 58-11-9.4 (UIM)
• Woods v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558 (SD 1997) (slight/gross comparison)
• South Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure (SDCL ch. 15-6, Rules 4, 8, 15, 38)

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