Bicycle Accident Complaint - Vermont

BICYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — VERMONT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1. CAPTION

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT — [COUNTY] UNIT, CIVIL DIVISION

DOCKET NO. [________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (BICYCLE COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendants, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [TOWN / COUNTY], Vermont, and at all material times was lawfully operating a bicycle upon the public highways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an individual residing in [TOWN / COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to Rule 4, V.R.C.P.

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 at [SERVICE ADDRESS / REGISTERED AGENT].

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

5. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court (Civil Division) under 4 V.S.A. § 31, as the claims sound in tort.

6. Venue is proper in this Unit under 12 V.S.A. § 402(a) because [Plaintiff resides in this Unit / Defendant resides in this Unit / neither party resides in Vermont].

7. This action is timely commenced within the three-year limitations period of 12 V.S.A. § 512, the Collision having occurred on [__/__/____].

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 [TOWN], Vermont (the "Collision").

9. Plaintiff was riding in a lawful and prudent manner — [as near to the right side of the improved area of the highway as is safe as contemplated by 23 V.S.A. § 1139 / within a marked bicycle lane / lawfully occupying the lane where conditions or hazards required] — and, to the extent the Collision occurred during darkness, Plaintiff's bicycle was equipped with a lighted front lamp and a rear lamp or reflector as required by Vermont law.

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. At all material times, Plaintiff was a "vulnerable user" of the highway within the meaning of 23 V.S.A. § 4(81), entitled to the protections of 23 V.S.A. § 1033(b).

13. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., overtook and passed Plaintiff's bicycle without leaving a clearance of at least four feet 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].

14. 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.

15. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was operating the bicycle in a lawful, prudent, and careful manner at all material times.

16. 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].

17. 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.

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

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

4. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

21. Driver Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care in the operation of a motor vehicle, to obey the Vermont rules of the road, to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, to overtake and pass a bicyclist only with the clearance required by law, and to refrain from conduct endangering others.

22. 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 exercising due care and without increasing clearance to a distance of at least four 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 an excessive or unsafe speed for conditions;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive; and
• Failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

23. 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.

24. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 8 below.

5. COUNT II — STATUTORY VIOLATION (Against Defendant Driver)

25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

26. The Vermont rules of the road impose specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of persons lawfully using the highways, including bicyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• 23 V.S.A. § 1136(c) — a person riding a bicycle is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to operators of vehicles, confirming that Plaintiff was a lawful user of the highway entitled to the protection of the rules of the road;
• 23 V.S.A. § 1033(b) — a driver approaching or passing a vulnerable user (including a bicyclist) shall exercise due care, which includes reducing speed and increasing clearance to a distance of at least four feet to pass safely, and shall cross the center of the highway to pass only as provided in § 1035;
• 23 V.S.A. § 1047 — a driver intending to turn left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction that is within the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard;
• 23 V.S.A. § 1048 — duties to stop and yield the right-of-way at a stop sign or when entering a through highway;
• 23 V.S.A. § 1039 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent.

27. 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.

28. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE] and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. The violation of an applicable safety statute raises a rebuttable presumption of negligence where Defendant owed Plaintiff a legal duty and the statute was intended to protect Plaintiff from this harm. Defendant's conduct directly and proximately caused Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

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

29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

30. 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.

31. 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 scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

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

7. COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATION

33. Plaintiff was free from negligence and did nothing, and failed to do nothing, that proximately caused or contributed to the Collision.

34. In the alternative, and without admitting any fault, pursuant to 12 V.S.A. § 1036, any negligence attributable to Plaintiff was not greater than the combined causal negligence of Defendants, so Plaintiff's recovery is not barred and should be diminished only in proportion to the negligence, if any, attributed to Plaintiff.

8. DAMAGES

35. 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, and long-term 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.

36. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative. If the evidence establishes that Driver Defendant acted with malice in conduct that was outrageously reprehensible, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages.

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully demands judgment against Defendants as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. Punitive damages, if proven, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• D. Costs of this action; and
• E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right, pursuant to Chapter I, Article 12 of the Vermont Constitution and Rule 38, V.R.C.P.

11. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to add or substitute parties, to assert additional claims, and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds, as permitted by Rule 15, V.R.C.P. Plaintiff denies any negligence on Plaintiff's own part; under 12 V.S.A. § 1036, any such negligence not greater than the combined causal negligence of Defendants diminishes but does not bar Plaintiff's recovery.

12. SIGNATURE BLOCK

DATED at [TOWN], Vermont, this [____] day of [MONTH], 20[____].

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (ERN [________])

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. INITIAL SERVICE OF PROCESS

Arrange service of the summons and this Complaint together on each Defendant under V.R.C.P. 4, using the authorized method applicable to that Defendant. Document completed service separately. The plaintiff must also serve a blank Answer and blank Notice of Appearance for Self-Represented Litigant with the summons and complaint.

14. VERMONT PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in Vermont must be commenced within three years of accrual. 12 V.S.A. § 512. Wrongful-death actions are governed by 14 V.S.A. § 1492 (generally a two-year period; verify if the cyclist was killed). Confirm the applicable period for every named defendant.
• MODIFIED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — the central liability issue. Under 12 V.S.A. § 1036, a claimant's contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it "was not greater than the causal total negligence of the defendant or defendants"; the practical effect is a 51% bar — a claimant whose fault exceeds the defendants' combined fault is barred, while a claimant at 50% or less recovers with damages diminished in proportion to the claimant's negligence. Where § 1036 applies, recovery against multiple defendants is apportioned by causal negligence; a fault-free plaintiff may retain a joint-and-several-liability theory under Vermont case law. In a bicycle case the defense will attack lane position, conspicuity, lighting, and signal phase; build the freedom-from-fault record early (see ¶¶ 9, 15, 33).
• The cyclist's rights and duties. 23 V.S.A. § 1136(c) grants a bicyclist all the rights and subjects the bicyclist to all the duties of a vehicle operator. The cyclist's own roadway-position duties (riding as near to the right of the improved area as is safe, with stated exceptions for turns, hazards, and overtaking) are in § 1139. A violation of these duties supplies the defense's comparative-negligence theory; investigate lane position and lighting.
• FOUR-FOOT SAFE PASSING — current law (do not use the old "three feet" or "no fixed distance"). Effective July 1, 2024 (2023, No. 165, § 44), 23 V.S.A. § 1033(b) requires a driver approaching or passing a "vulnerable user" — which includes a bicyclist (see § 4(81)) — to exercise due care, "which includes reducing speed and increasing clearance to a distance of at least four feet," and to cross the center of the highway to pass only as provided in § 1035. As a practical matter, if the driver cannot give four feet, the driver must wait to pass. A violation carries a civil penalty of not less than $200. Earlier guidance describing a "reasonable and prudent" standard or a recommended distance is superseded; confirm the current text before pleading.
• Helmet evidence. Record whether Plaintiff wore a helmet and preserve the helmet, photos, and medical evidence relevant to the injuries. Assess any proposed fault or injury-causation argument on the case-specific record.
• UM/UIM and hit-and-run. A bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own automobile uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage — and under the UM/UIM coverage of a resident relative's policy — even though the cyclist was not in a vehicle, because cyclists are typically "insureds" for UM/UIM purposes. UM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle, subject to prompt-reporting and (in some policies) physical-contact requirements. Vermont requires UM/UIM coverage on motor-vehicle policies (23 V.S.A. § 941; verify). Promptly identify and notify every applicable policy, preserve the UM/UIM claim, and comply with consent-to-settle / subrogation procedures before resolving the liability claim.
• Punitive damages. Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33, ¶¶ 18–20, requires outrageously reprehensible conduct and malice. Wrongful, reckless, or willful conduct alone does not suffice; plead supporting facts if seeking this relief.
• Service. Service of process is governed by Rule 4, V.R.C.P.; out-of-state defendants may be served under Vermont's long-arm statute, 12 V.S.A. § 913.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Vermont Statutes Online (Title 12 — Court Procedure; Title 23 — Motor Vehicles) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/
• 12 V.S.A. § 512 (three-year limitations) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/12/023/00512
• 12 V.S.A. § 1036 (comparative negligence) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/12/027/01036
• 23 V.S.A. § 1136 (bicyclist rights and duties) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01136
• 23 V.S.A. § 1033 (passing motor vehicles and vulnerable users — four-foot clearance) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01033
• 23 V.S.A. § 1139 (operation of bicycles — roadway position) — https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/23/013/01139
• 23 V.S.A. § 1035 (crossing center to pass); § 4(81) (vulnerable user); §§ 1039, 1047, 1048 (rules of the road)
• 4 V.S.A. § 31 (Superior Court); 12 V.S.A. § 402 (venue); Fly Fish Vermont, 2010 VT 33 (punitive damages); Sheldon, 2018 VT 125 (safety-statute presumption)
• Vermont Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 4, 5, 8, 15, 38)

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