Motorcycle Accident Complaint

MOTORCYCLE 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 (MOTORCYCLE 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 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] 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 and property damage sustained in a motor-vehicle collision occurring 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 [YEAR / MAKE / MODEL] motorcycle traveling [northbound / southbound / etc.] on [ROADWAY] at or near its intersection with [CROSS STREET / LANDMARK / MILE MARKER], in [CITY], Washington (the "Collision").

8. 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.

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

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 private drive or side street into Plaintiff's path].

11. Although Plaintiff's motorcycle was plainly visible, Driver Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff's approaching 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 was operating 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 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, restraint systems, 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.

16. 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 motorcyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, 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 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 without ascertaining it could be made safely;
• Following Plaintiff's motorcycle more closely than was reasonable and prudent;
• 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.

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 motorcyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• RCW 46.61.185 — a driver intending to turn left within an intersection, or into an alley, private road, or driveway, 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; a collision after passing a yield sign without stopping is prima facie evidence of failure to yield;
• 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 motorcycle, riding gear, helmet, 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 plaintiff 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.
• Helmet law. Washington has a universal helmet law: every motorcycle operator and passenger must wear an approved, securely fastened helmet on a public roadway. RCW 46.37.530. Confirm the rider was helmeted and emphasize compliance. If the rider was not helmeted, anticipate a comparative-fault argument on the head-injury component of damages; the helmet-law violation goes to the severity of certain injuries, not to the cause of the collision. Retain medical/biomechanical experts to separate crash causation from injury causation, and verify the current admissibility framework.
• Lane use. Lane splitting is unlawful in Washington (RCW 46.61.608); motorcyclists are entitled to full use of a lane. Anticipate a defense effort to attribute fault based on lane position, and rebut it with the actual mechanics of the collision.
• "Biker bias." Anticipate juror bias against motorcyclists in voir dire and develop conspicuity and right-of-way themes early.
• UM/UIM context. Washington is a fault state. Motorcyclists are frequently struck by minimally insured or uninsured drivers, and medical costs commonly exceed liability limits. Promptly identify and notify the plaintiff's own uninsured/underinsured-motorist carrier and any PIP/MedPay coverage, preserve UM/UIM claims, 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 46.61.185, 46.61.180, 46.61.190, 46.61.205 (right-of-way); 46.61.145 (following too closely)
• RCW 46.37.530 (motorcycle helmet and equipment)
• 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

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.