Motorcycle Accident Complaint - Wisconsin

MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — WISCONSIN

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. Damages
8. Prayer for Relief
9. Jury Demand
10. Reservation of Rights
11. Signature and Service Blocks
12. Wisconsin Practice Notes
13. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

STATE OF WISCONSIN — CIRCUIT COURT — [COUNTY] COUNTY

Case No. [________]

Case Code: 30101 (Personal Injury — Auto)

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES (MOTORCYCLE COLLISION)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

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

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is an adult resident of [COUNTY] County, Wisconsin, and at all material times was lawfully operating a motorcycle on the public highways of this State.

2. Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver Defendant") is, upon information and belief, an adult resident of [COUNTY / STATE] and may be served with process at [SERVICE ADDRESS] pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 801.11.

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 Wisconsin tort law for personal injuries and property damage sustained in a motor-vehicle collision occurring in [COUNTY] County, Wisconsin, on [__/__/____].

5. Subject-matter jurisdiction is proper in this Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 753.03, as the claims sound in tort and are within this Court's jurisdiction.

6. Venue is proper in this county under Wis. Stat. § 801.50 because the cause of action arose in this county and/or one or more Defendants resides or does substantial 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], Wisconsin (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 Wisconsin 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 (management and control); and
• Failing to maintain proper control of the vehicle.

20. 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.

21. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has sustained the damages described in Section 7 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 Wisconsin rules of the road impose specific statutory duties on Driver Defendant for the protection of persons lawfully using the highways, including motorcyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• Wis. Stat. § 346.18(2) — a driver within an intersection intending to turn left or make a U-turn shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction;
• Wis. Stat. § 346.18(1) — 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;
• Wis. Stat. § 346.46 — a driver shall stop at a stop sign and yield the right-of-way to vehicles that have entered or are approaching the intersection;
• Wis. Stat. § 346.14 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent; and
• Wis. Stat. § 346.05 — duties governing driving on the right side of the roadway.

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 under Wisconsin law, and was a direct and 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 direct and 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.

8. 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. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
• C. Costs and disbursements of this action; and
• D. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

9. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by a twelve-person jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 805.01 and 756.06, 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 comparative negligence on Plaintiff's part.

11. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

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

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], State Bar No. [________]

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

12. WISCONSIN PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions in Wisconsin must generally be commenced within three years of accrual, including injuries arising from a motor-vehicle accident. Wis. Stat. § 893.54(1m). Note the shorter two-year period for a wrongful-death claim arising from a motor-vehicle accident under § 893.54(2m). Claims against a governmental entity require a notice of claim (e.g., 120 days under § 893.80); confirm and calendar all deadlines.
• MODIFIED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE — the central issue. Under Wis. Stat. § 895.045, a plaintiff's contributory negligence does not bar recovery so long as it was "not greater than" the negligence of the person from whom recovery is sought (i.e., 50% or less as to that defendant), with damages reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. A plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault recovers nothing from that defendant. Fault percentages assigned by the jury must total 100%. Frame the plaintiff's lawful, prudent operation carefully and prepare to contest fault allocation, which is often outcome-determinative.
• Helmet law — important nuance. Wisconsin's helmet requirement is partial: under Wis. Stat. § 347.485, only operators/passengers under 18 and instructional-permit holders must wear a conforming helmet. Adult riders are not required to wear helmets. All motorcycle operators, however, must wear eye protection (face shield, goggles, or glasses) unless the motorcycle has a qualifying windshield. Where the rider was an adult, a defense argument that helmet non-use is negligence has no statutory footing; nonetheless, anticipate a causation-based argument on the head-injury component of damages and retain medical/biomechanical experts to separate crash causation from injury causation. Verify the current admissibility framework.
• "Biker bias." Anticipate juror bias against motorcyclists in voir dire; under the 51% bar, every percentage point of fault assigned to the rider reduces recovery and crossing the threshold eliminates it. Develop conspicuity and right-of-way themes early.
• UM/UIM context. Wisconsin is a fault state with minimum limits often inadequate for serious motorcycle injuries. Promptly identify and notify the plaintiff's own uninsured/underinsured-motorist carrier and any 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 Wis. Stat. §§ 801.11 et seq.; out-of-state defendants may be served under Wisconsin's long-arm statute, Wis. Stat. § 801.05.

13. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Wisconsin Statutes (Chapter 346 — Rules of the Road; Chapter 347 — Equipment; Chapter 893 — Limitations; Chapter 895 — Damages) — https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes
• Wis. Stat. § 893.54 (limitations) — https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/893
• Wis. Stat. § 895.045 (comparative negligence) — https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895
• Wis. Stat. § 346.18 (right-of-way); § 346.46 (stop signs); § 346.14 (following too closely)
• Wis. Stat. § 347.485 (motorcycle headgear and eye protection) — https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/347
• Wisconsin Statutes Chapters 801, 805 (civil procedure); Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions (WisJI-Civil)

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