Motorcycle Accident Complaint - Michigan

MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — MICHIGAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. General Factual Allegations
5. No-Fault / Threshold Allegations
6. Count I — Negligence (Against Defendant Driver)
7. Count II — Negligence Per Se / Statutory Violation (Against Defendant Driver)
8. Count III — Owner's Liability / Negligent Entrustment (Against Defendant Owner)
9. Damages
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Jury Demand
12. Reservation of Rights
13. Verification and Signature
14. Certificate of Service
15. Michigan Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

Case No. [____________]-NI     Hon. [____________]

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MOTORCYCLE COLLISION)

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint.

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

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an individual residing in [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Michigan, who at all material times was lawfully operating a motorcycle on the public roadways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an individual residing in [COUNTY/STATE] who, at all material times, operated the motor vehicle described below.

3. Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner Defendant") is [an individual residing in / a corporation or other entity with a principal place of business in] [COUNTY/STATE] and, at all material times, was the titled and/or registered owner of the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant, and/or employed Driver Defendant.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under Michigan tort law and the Michigan No-Fault Act for personal injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle collision occurring in [CITY/TOWNSHIP], [COUNTY] County, Michigan, on [__/__/____].

5. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to MCL 600.605 because the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

6. Venue is proper in this county under MCL 600.1629(1)(a), the tort-specific venue provision governing personal-injury actions, because the Collision occurred in this county and one or more Defendants resides, has a place of business, or conducts business in this county (with MCL 600.1621 applying only as a residual venue rule under MCL 600.1629(1)(d) if no county satisfies the tort-venue criteria).

4. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] motorcycle traveling [northbound / southbound / etc.] on [ROADWAY] at or near its intersection with [CROSS STREET / LANDMARK], in [CITY/TOWNSHIP], Michigan (the "Collision").

8. At the same time and place, Driver Defendant was operating a [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] — a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of MCL 500.3101(1)(i) — owned by Owner Defendant.

9. Traffic, lighting, roadway, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight], and Plaintiff's motorcycle headlamp was illuminated and operating as required by law.

10. The Collision occurred when Driver Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., turned left across Plaintiff's path of travel; failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection; changed lanes into the lane occupied by Plaintiff's motorcycle; followed Plaintiff's motorcycle too closely and struck it from the rear; pulled out from a stop sign, side street, or private drive into Plaintiff's path].

11. Although Plaintiff's motorcycle was plainly visible and approaching with the right-of-way, Driver Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff's motorcycle, misjudged its speed and distance, and/or failed to keep a proper lookout for motorcyclists lawfully sharing the roadway.

12. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and operated the motorcycle in a lawful, prudent, and careful manner at all material times.

13. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff was violently thrown from the motorcycle 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].

14. Because a motorcyclist lacks the structural protection, occupant restraints, and crumple zones of an enclosed vehicle, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of passenger vehicles.

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

5. NO-FAULT / THRESHOLD ALLEGATIONS

16. The Collision was a "motor vehicle accident" within the meaning of the No-Fault Act because it involved the use of a motor vehicle (the vehicle operated by Driver Defendant) as a motor vehicle. Although a motorcycle is expressly excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" under MCL 500.3101(1)(i), Plaintiff, as a motorcyclist injured in a collision with a motor vehicle, is entitled to personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits payable in the order of priority established by MCL 500.3114(5), and any such claim for first-party benefits is preserved.

17. This Complaint asserts a third-party tort claim against the at-fault Defendants for noneconomic loss and for economic loss in excess of the benefits available under the No-Fault Act.

18. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff has suffered death [if wrongful death], serious impairment of body function, and/or permanent serious disfigurement within the meaning of MCL 500.3135(1) and (5) — an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects Plaintiff's general ability to lead a normal life — thereby satisfying the tort threshold for recovery of noneconomic damages.

19. Plaintiff further seeks recovery of allowable expenses, work loss, and other economic damages to the extent they exceed the daily, monthly, and three-year limitations on PIP benefits, as permitted by MCL 500.3135(3)(c).

6. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant Driver)

20. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 19 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 Michigan Vehicle Code, to keep a proper lookout for motorcyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, 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 motorcycle;
• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff's oncoming or approaching motorcycle;
• Turning left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming motorcycle when it was unsafe to do so;
• Making an unsafe lane change into the lane occupied by Plaintiff's motorcycle;
• Following Plaintiff's motorcycle more closely than was reasonable and prudent, and failing to maintain an assured clear distance;
• Misjudging the speed and distance of Plaintiff's approaching motorcycle;
• 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 described below.

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

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

25. The Michigan Vehicle Code imposes specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of persons lawfully using the roadway, including motorcyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• MCL 257.650 — an operator within an intersection 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;
• MCL 257.649 — an operator approaching an intersection shall yield to a vehicle that has entered from a different highway; when two vehicles enter from different highways at approximately the same time, the operator on the left shall yield to the vehicle on the right; and an operator shall obey stop and yield signs;
• MCL 257.643 — an operator shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent; and
• MCL 257.627 — an operator shall not drive at a speed greater than that which is reasonable and prudent under the conditions.

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 and/or is evidence of negligence under Michigan law, and was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. COUNT III — OWNER'S LIABILITY / NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT (Against Defendant Owner)

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

29. At the time of the Collision, the subject vehicle was being operated with the express or implied knowledge and consent of Owner Defendant. Owner Defendant is therefore liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle pursuant to the owner-liability statute, MCL 257.401.

30. In the alternative, Owner Defendant negligently 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; and/or Driver Defendant was operating the vehicle as the agent, servant, or employee of Owner Defendant within the scope of that agency or employment, rendering Owner Defendant vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

31. Owner Defendant's statutory and/or common-law liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

9. DAMAGES

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

• Noneconomic damages — physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, fright and shock, disability, denial of social pleasure and enjoyment, embarrassment, humiliation, and mortification, past and future;
• Permanent physical impairment and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Excess economic damages — allowable medical and rehabilitation expenses, attendant care, work loss, and other economic loss in excess of the No-Fault benefit limitations;
• Past and future medical and life-care expenses to be proven at trial;
• Lost earnings and loss of earning capacity; and
• Property damage to the motorcycle, riding gear, helmet, and personal effects, including loss of use, to the extent recoverable.

33. Plaintiff pleads each category of damage separately and in the alternative, in an amount in excess of $25,000 to be determined by the trier of fact.

10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendants, jointly and/or severally as the law allows, as follows:

• A. Damages in whatever amount in excess of $25,000 Plaintiff is found to be entitled;
• B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013;
• C. Costs, including statutory, taxable, and actual costs and expert-witness fees as allowed by MCR 2.625 and applicable law; and
• D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

11. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff will file a separate written jury demand and pay the jury fee within the time required by MCR 2.508(B)(1). This Complaint alone is not the jury demand.

12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint pursuant to MCR 2.118 to add or substitute parties, to assert additional claims (including any first-party PIP claim), and to conform the pleadings to the evidence as discovery proceeds. Plaintiff denies any comparative fault and pleads that any fault attributable to Plaintiff, if any, was 50% or less and does not bar recovery of noneconomic damages under MCL 600.2959 and MCL 500.3135(2)(b).

13. VERIFICATION AND SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________])

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [___-___-____]

Email: [EMAIL]

Dated: [__/__/____]

VERIFICATION (MCR 1.109(D)(3)). I declare, under the penalties of perjury, that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that its factual statements are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

Date: [__/__/____]     [________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

14. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____], I served (or will cause to be served with the summons) a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT upon the Defendant(s) at the address(es) listed above by [personal service / certified mail under MCR 2.105 / the court's electronic-filing system upon counsel of record].

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME] (P[________])

15. MICHIGAN PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. An action for injury to a person must be commenced within three years after the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805. A first-party PIP claim must generally be commenced within one year of the date of accident (subject to the one-year-back rule), MCL 500.3145, so the no-fault clock differs from the tort clock — track both.
• Motorcycles and no-fault — the central issue. The No-Fault Act excludes motorcycles from "motor vehicle." MCL 500.3101(1)(i). Therefore: (a) a single-motorcycle or motorcycle-on-motorcycle crash is a "motorcycle accident," and the rider generally has NO PIP claim (relying instead on health insurance and any optional motorcycle medical coverage); but (b) where the motorcyclist is struck by an automobile, truck, or other motor vehicle, it IS a motor-vehicle accident — the rider may recover PIP benefits from the insurer determined under the priority scheme of MCL 500.3114(5) (generally the insurer of the involved motor vehicle's owner/operator first), AND may sue the at-fault motorist in tort. Confirm the priority order and notice deadlines immediately after intake.
• Tort threshold (MCL 500.3135). Noneconomic damages are recoverable only on proof of death, permanent serious disfigurement, or "serious impairment of body function" — an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function affecting the person's general ability to lead a normal life. Plead the threshold expressly (see ¶ 18) and develop objective medical proof.
• Modified comparative fault (more-than-50% bar). Under MCL 600.2959 and MCL 500.3135(2)(b), noneconomic damages are barred if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, and otherwise are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's fault.
• Helmet law and "biker bias." Michigan is NOT a universal-helmet state. Under MCL 257.658, riders and passengers under 21 must wear a DOT-approved crash helmet; a rider 21 or older may ride without one only if the rider (a) has held a motorcycle endorsement at least two years or completed an approved safety course, and (b) carries at least $20,000 in first-party medical-benefits coverage. A helmet-law violation is a civil infraction and, by MCL 500.3113(b), does NOT disqualify an otherwise eligible motorcyclist from no-fault benefits. The defense will nonetheless attempt to use helmet non-use to argue comparative fault and reduce the head-injury component of damages; retain medical/biomechanical experts to separate crash causation from injury causation and address "biker bias" in voir dire.
• Owner liability. MCL 257.401 makes the vehicle owner liable for injuries caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle with the owner's consent (statutory presumption of consent for family members).
• UM/UIM context. Motorcyclists are frequently struck by uninsured or underinsured drivers; promptly identify and notify the rider's own UM/UIM carrier and any applicable household policies, preserve those claims, and comply with consent-to-settle and subrogation requirements before resolving the liability claim.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Michigan Compiled Laws — https://www.legislature.mi.gov
• MCL 600.5805 (limitations) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-5805
• MCL 600.2959 (comparative fault) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2959
• MCL 500.3101 (No-Fault definitions; motorcycle excluded) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-500-3101
• MCL 500.3114 (PIP priority) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-500-3114
• MCL 500.3135 (tort threshold; serious impairment) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-500-3135
• MCL 257.650 (left turn; right-of-way) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-650
• MCL 257.649 (intersection right-of-way) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-649
• MCL 257.658 (motorcycle helmet) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-658
• MCL 257.401 (owner liability) — https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-257-401
• Michigan Court Rules (MCR 2.105, 2.111, 2.113, 2.118, 2.508, 2.625)

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