Bicycle Accident Complaint

BICYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — WASHINGTON

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 / Statutory Violation (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. Washington Practice Notes
13. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR [COUNTY] COUNTY

NO. [________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (BICYCLE COLLISION)

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, alleges as follows:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [COUNTY] County, Washington, 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, an individual residing in [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to CR 4.

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual / a corporation / an LLC] that, at all material times, owned, controlled, leased, 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 Washington tort law for personal injuries sustained when a motor vehicle struck Plaintiff, a bicyclist, in [COUNTY] County, Washington, on [__/__/____].

5. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this Superior Court pursuant to RCW 2.08.010, as the claims sound in tort and the amount in controversy exceeds this Court's jurisdictional minimum.

6. Venue is proper in this county under RCW 4.12.020 and RCW 4.12.025 because the cause of action arose in this county and/or one or more Defendants resides or transacts business herein.

3. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. 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], Washington (the "Collision").

8. Plaintiff was riding in a lawful and prudent manner — [in the right lane, on the right-hand shoulder, or within a marked bicycle lane / lawfully occupying the lane where conditions required] — and, to the extent the Collision occurred during darkness, Plaintiff's bicycle was equipped with a lighted front lamp and a rear reflector or lamp as required by RCW 46.61.780.

9. 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.

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

11. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., overtook and passed Plaintiff's bicycle without moving completely into a lane to the left, or without leaving a safe distance, 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].

12. 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.

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

14. 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].

15. 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.

16. 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)

17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if fully set forth herein.

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

19. 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 moving completely into a lane to the left where required, or without reducing to a safe passing speed and passing at a safe distance of at least three feet where practicable;
• 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.

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

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

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

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

23. The Washington 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:

• RCW 46.61.755 — every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway 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;
• RCW 46.61.110(2) — a driver approaching a bicyclist traveling in the right lane, on the right-hand shoulder, or in a bicycle lane shall, on a roadway with two or more lanes in the direction of travel, move completely into a lane to the left before passing and until safely clear; and on a single-lane roadway, reduce to a safe passing speed and pass at a safe distance, where practicable of at least three feet, or move completely into the oncoming lane when there is insufficient room;
• RCW 46.61.185 — a driver intending to turn left shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction;
• RCW 46.61.180 — when two vehicles approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield to the vehicle on the right;
• RCW 46.61.190 — a driver approaching a stop or yield sign shall stop or slow and yield the right-of-way;
• RCW 46.61.205 — a driver shall yield when entering or crossing a roadway; and
• RCW 46.61.145 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent.

24. 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.

25. Driver Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was cited for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Such violation constitutes negligence per se where authorized by RCW 5.40.050, and otherwise constitutes evidence of negligence, and was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

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

26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 25 as if fully set forth herein.

27. 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.

28. 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.

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

7. DAMAGES

30. 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.

31. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative. Washington does not cap economic or non-economic compensatory damages in personal-injury actions.

8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

• A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
• B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• C. Costs and statutory attorney fees as allowed by law; and
• D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

9. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right, pursuant to CR 38, and tenders the requisite jury fee.

10. 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. Plaintiff denies any contributory fault; under RCW 4.22.005, any such fault diminishes but does not bar Plaintiff's recovery.

11. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

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

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], WSBA No. [________]

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

12. WASHINGTON PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in Washington must generally be commenced within three years of accrual. RCW 4.16.080(2). An action is "commenced" for limitations purposes by filing or service, provided the other step occurs within 90 days. Note the shorter two-year period for assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel, and slander (RCW 4.16.100).
• PURE COMPARATIVE FAULT — the governing rule. Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes the recovery in proportion to that fault but does not bar recovery; a cyclist may recover even if predominantly at fault. The statute expressly displaces all-or-nothing doctrines, including last clear chance. Fault is allocated among all entities under RCW 4.22.070 (including nonparties in certain circumstances), so identify and address every potentially at-fault actor. Even so, the defense will attack lane position, conspicuity, lighting, and signal phase to inflate the cyclist's percentage; build the freedom-from-fault record early (see ¶¶ 8, 13).
• The cyclist's rights and duties. RCW 46.61.755 grants a bicyclist on a roadway all the rights and subjects the bicyclist to all the duties of a vehicle driver (and treats a bicyclist on a sidewalk/crosswalk as a pedestrian). Cyclists may choose to ride on a path, bike lane, shoulder, or travel lane as suits their safety (RCW 46.61.770), and may treat a stop sign as a yield sign (RCW 46.61.190). A violation of cyclist duties supplies the defense's comparative-fault theory; investigate lane position and lighting (RCW 46.61.780).
• Safe passing — move over or give three feet. RCW 46.61.110(2) (amended 2019, c. 403) requires a driver overtaking a bicyclist in the right lane, right-hand shoulder, or bicycle lane to: (a) on a roadway with two or more lanes in the direction of travel, move completely into a lane to the left before passing and until safely clear; and (b) on a single-lane roadway, reduce to a safe passing speed and pass at a safe distance, "where practicable of at least three feet," or move completely into the oncoming lane when there is insufficient room and it is safe. A violation carries an additional fine deposited into the vulnerable-roadway-user education account. Confirm the current text before pleading.
• Negligence per se vs. evidence of negligence. RCW 5.40.050 abrogated the common-law negligence-per-se doctrine for most statutory violations, making a breach of a statute, ordinance, or administrative rule evidence of negligence — except for enumerated categories (notably driving while intoxicated and certain speed-related violations), which remain negligence per se. Frame Count II to match the violation at issue; a DUI or qualifying speed violation supports a true per se theory, while an unsafe-pass or right-of-way violation will typically be evidence of negligence.
• Helmet non-use generally inadmissible. Washington has no statewide bicycle-helmet law (helmet requirements, if any, are local ordinances, generally for minors). For adult cyclists, evidence or argument that the plaintiff was not wearing a helmet is generally inadmissible to show comparative fault or to reduce damages; move in limine to exclude it, and confine any helmet argument to the head-injury component of damages with medical/biomechanical experts separating crash causation from injury causation. Verify the current Washington evidentiary framework before relying on it.
• UM/UIM, PIP, and hit-and-run. A bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle may recover under their own automobile uninsured/underinsured-motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and any PIP/MedPay coverage — and under the coverage of a resident relative's policy — even though the cyclist was not in a vehicle, because cyclists are typically "insureds" for these purposes. UM coverage also responds to a hit-and-run / phantom vehicle, subject to prompt-reporting and (in some policies) physical-contact requirements. 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.
• Service. Service of process is governed by CR 4 and RCW 4.28; out-of-state defendants may be served under Washington's long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185.

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Revised Code of Washington (Title 4 — Civil Procedure; Title 46 — Motor Vehicles) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/
• RCW 4.16.080 (limitations) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.16.080
• RCW 4.22.005 (comparative fault); RCW 4.22.070 (allocation) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.22&full=true
• RCW 46.61.755 (bicyclist rights and duties) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.755
• RCW 46.61.110 (overtaking and passing — bicyclist move-over / three feet) — https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.110
• RCW 46.61.185, 46.61.180, 46.61.190, 46.61.205 (right-of-way); 46.61.145 (following too closely); 46.61.770, 46.61.780 (bicycle lane use and lighting)
• RCW 5.40.050 (breach of statutory duty as evidence of negligence)
• Washington Superior Court Civil Rules (CR 4, 8, 38); Washington Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil (WPI 70.09, Bicyclists)

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