Call Us For A Free Consultation or a Free Online Consultation

Bike Accidents

Our Seattle bicycle injury lawyers have obtained record breaking settlements/verdicts on behalf of our clients. When a cyclist is involved in an accident, the injuries are often more serious and often include spinal cord injuries and/or brain injuries. Unlike a driver, the bicyclist does not have all of that metal as protection.  A seriously injured cyclist should treat the accident just like it was a car-only accident. Get the insurance information and drivers license of all of the parties involved. Then, consult with an attorney who has solid experience in representing injured cyclists. The bike injury accident lawyers at SKW have helped countless injured cyclists. One of our recent, high profile cases include Gendler, where our attorneys represented a cyclist who was injured on the Montlake Bridge. Despite clear information that the Montlake Bridge posed a serious risk to cyclists, Washington State did nothing. As a result, Mr. Gendler seriously injured himself on a bicycle and is now a quadriplegic. Read more about the Gendler case. SKW maintains a website and blog devoted to bicycle injuries/accidents, which we encourage you to visit.

Representative Cases

Wuthrich v. King County

The 2016 Wuthrich v. King County decision makes roadways in our state safer for everyone. In a unanimous decision handed down on Wuthrich, the Washington State Supreme Court held that a municipality has a duty to take reasonable steps to address overgrown roadside vegetation that makes the roadway unsafe for drivers approaching an intersection.

Wuthrich advances roadway safety for anyone who travels the roads in Washington State. As our state’s highest court maintains: A municipality has the overarching duty to provide reasonably safe roads and must be held to the same standards as that applied to private parties.

Our state’s supreme court now explicitly rejects old law that held that a municipality’s duty is limited to mere compliance with applicable law. Moreover, an “inherently dangerous condition” does not exclusively depend on a condition that “exists in the roadway itself.” A hazard may exist as a situation along a highway, such as overgrown bushes that obstruct drivers’ view of oncoming traffic.

The Wuthrich decision stems from a June 2011 lawsuit that Guy Wuthrich filed against Christa Gilland and King County. Guy was riding a motorcycle on Avondale Road NE in King County, approaching an intersection with NE 159th Street on June 20, 2008 at about 5:15 PM. Drivers on 159th St. have a stop sign at the intersection, but drivers on Avondale Road do not. Christa Gilland was driver a car on 159th Street. When she reached the intersection with Avondale Rd., she stopped to wait for passing traffic. She did not see Guy approaching from her left. She turned left onto Avondale Road and collided into Guy’s motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries to Guy. The lawsuit alleged that the County was liable for Guy’s injuries because the wall of overgrown blackberry bushes on County property obstructed Ms. Gilland’s view of traffic at the intersection. The trial court dismissed the action against the County on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision.

Ray Kahler argued before the Supreme Court and you may watch his oral argument here.

Moothart v. State of Washington
Todd Moothart, a 50 yo software engineer, sustained serious injuries that put him in the hospital and then nursing home for several months. He will live for the rest of his life with ongoing pain and disabilities.

Todd Moothart, a 50 yo software engineer, sustained serious injuries that put him in the hospital and then nursing home for several months. He will live for the rest of his life with ongoing pain and disabilities.

A Thurston County jury awarded a Vancouver man almost $3 million for multiple injuries caused by a pavement edge drop-off on a highway on-ramp.

Todd Moothart, a 50-year-old software development engineer, was on a motorcycle ride with two friends on a beautiful Saturday afternoon in September 2013. Their plan was to head east on State Route 14 to a viewpoint overlooking the Klickitat River. When Moothart and another rider got separated from the third motorcyclist by a traffic light, Moothart decided to pull off onto the shoulder of an on-ramp for SR 14 to stop and wait for the third motorcyclist to catch up. It is safer for motorcyclists to ride together as a group because they have a more visible  presence on the road.

A 7 " deep piece of pavement jutted out from the main road just beyond the drop-off.

When Moothart pulled off onto the shoulder, he encountered a seven inch deep pavement edge drop-off at the fog line. A seven inch deep piece of pavement jutted out from the edge of the pavement just beyond the drop-off. When Moothart’s Harley Davidson motorcycle hit the face of the broken pavement, his front and rear wheels were severely dented, and he was launched into the air like he was on a trampoline.

Safety standards in the transportation engineering field recommend that pavement edge drop-offs be kept to a depth of no greater than two inches. The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) striping truck had came upon the pavement edge pothole and had painted the white fog stripe around it. In other words, WSDOT clearly acknowledging the hazard but did not report or repair it.

Moothart and his passenger were both ejected from the motorcycle. Moothart suffered multiple injuries, including a kidney laceration, numerous broken ribs, collapsed lungs, pulmonary contusions, a concussion, broken bones in both forearms, amputation of the top joint of his right index finger, and fractures to bones in his right pelvic ring. He was placed on a mechanical ventilator for eight days and required several surgeries.

Moothart spent 21 days in the hospital, followed by 55 days in a nursing home. He was then cared for by his mother and sister in Iowa for two months before he returned to Vancouver and resumed working part time.

The design plans for the on-ramp called for an eight foot paved shoulder on the right hand side. At the location where Moothart pulled off, there was no paved shoulder at all beyond the fog line. For unknown reasons, the State’s as-built plans for the on-ramp showed an eight foot paved shoulder, but the evidence indicated that the on-ramp never had an eight-foot paved shoulder in the area where Moothart pulled off. The on-ramp was built in the mid 90’s.

The Honorable Mary Sue Wilson granted judgment as a matter of law on the State’s negligence based on the State’s failure to provide an eight foot paved shoulder as required by the design plans. The jury also found that the State failed to maintain the on-ramp in a reasonably safe condition for ordinary travel.

Moothart has chronic pain due to myofascial injuries and nerve damage but is able to work full time. He has ongoing disabilities related to the loss of the top joint of his right index finger, myofascial damage in his forearms, and chronic pain. He no longer rides motorcycles because the crash took the enjoyment out of riding for him. He had been a motorcycle enthusiast for over 30 years.

The jury awarded $2,993,000, which included approximately $500,000 in undisputed past medical bills and wage loss. While the jury found negligence on the part of Moothart, it did not find proximate cause with regard to Moothart’s negligence.

The jurors’ post-trial message to WSDOT was that it needed to develop a clear policy for identifying, reporting and promptly repairing pavement edge drop-offs so that others will not have to suffer serious injuries the way Mr. Moothart did.

Young female bicyclist vs. car

Ms. Fleming helped obtain a six figure settlement for this young lady, who was commuting by bike and struck by an inattentive driver.

Gendler v. State of Washington

(August 2010) $8,000,000 settlement for a defective bridge where a gap in the bridge deck was too wide, allowing a bicycle tire to wedge in the gap, throwing the rider to the ground and paralyzing him.

You may have heard an interview on NPR, read a blog post, or read a story in The Seattle Times about this case. In the era of media spin and 15-second sound bites, it’s more often that we are forced to make assessments without the benefit of the facts. What apparently outraged some was the $8 million settlement. If you are interested in knowing the facts behind the story, read on. Make, remake, or confirm your opinion of what this case was about.

Government Liability

Washington State owns the Montlake Bridge. Washington State has a duty to make all roadways safe for bicyclists in addition to cars/all motor vehicles. The roadway across the Montlake Bridge was unsafe for bicycles.  The State knew this, yet chose to do nothing to make it safer. No other business or government entity was responsible for the safety of the Bridge besides the State.

The Montlake Bridge

Since 1999, the Montlake Bridge had been unsafe for cyclists (the State repaired the hazard in 2009). Washington State started a retrofit of the Montlake Bridge in Seattle. The project included replacing the metal grate surface of the traffic lanes. The replacement grate was of a different design than the existing. The seam, formed by two abutting sections of grate, sits in the middle of the lanes of traffic. The specifications for the Bridge deck called for a narrow seam, one that would not have posed a danger to bicycle tires. The State allowed the deck seam to be wider than the specifications called for (based on tolerances), wide enough for a road bike tire to drop into it.

1999 – Notice to the State of a Danger

During the deck replacement project, the State found out how dangerous the seam could be. A cyclist crashed when his front bicycle tire wedged in the seam and he was thrown to the deck face-first. Concerned about other cyclists, he contacted the City of Seattle, who contacted the State’s project manager to inspect the problem. The State’s project manager made a note about the crash in his project diary.

1999 to 2099 – The State Ignored the Danger

  • The State’ project manager does not recall ever following up.
  • The State could have erected a warning sign – it did not.
  • The State could have fixed the problem – it assumed this would not happen again.
  • The State could have closed the roadway to bicycle traffic – it did not.

Mickey’s Crash – October 28, 2007

Mickey met up with a friend to go for a ride around the south end of Lake Washington. They intersected near UW Medical Center. It was a quiet Sunday afternoon on Montlake, not much traffic, so they traveled on the road. There was no traffic within a block’s length behind them. Mickey rode in the right lane. Halfway across the Bridge he switched to the left lane to prepare for a left turn. As he traversed the lane, he was suddenly thrown over his front bars onto the Bridge deck on his back. His front wheel had wedged into the seam in the deck. It took two people to dislodge the wheel.

Bicycles on the Bridge

In comments to the multiple articles written about Mickey’s case, many were critical of his decision to ride on the roadway rather than on the sidewalk. This case settled in the months leading up to the trial date, but in pre-trial motions the court determined that Mickey had the right to ride on the roadway and that Mickey had the right to travel in the left lane because he was preparing for a turn.

  • “[I]t is the ruling of this Court that bicycles are entitled to travel upon the Montlake Bridge roadway as a matter of law.” Judge McPhee, February 16, 2010.
  • “Plaintiff Michael Gendler’s operation of his bicycle in the inside (left) lane of the Montlake Bridge at the time of the subject incident was authorized by law.” Judge McPhee, May 28, 2010.

The Settlement Amount

What does $8 million mean? It’s not winning the lottery. It’s not a windfall. The settlement amount represents the exorbitant costs of the care for someone with a spinal cord injury. To learn more about Mickey’s life as a quadriplegic, read this article.

The $8 million settlement was well justified, as it will help to cover exorbitant medical bills, ongoing medical care, 24/7 assistance, facility accommodations at home and at work, etc.  However, proponents of legislation to reduce the frequently target the Gendler case because of the high settlement amount. We believe that most Washingtonians recognize the importance of keeping the government accountable, when government entities ignore safety issues that could ultimately result in catastrophic injuries to innocent citizens.

Keebler v. Asmus

(October 2012) $1.235 million settlement. Bicyclist hit by a motor vehicle. Fractured leg, several vertebral fractures (no paralysis) and a mild traumatic brain injury.

Girod v. Cedell

(December 2010) $1 million policy limits settlement for motor vehicle bicycle crash on SR 105 resulting in death of 31-year-old woman.

Wade v. Pierce County

(December 2006) $1,250,000 settlement for death of a 12-year-old on a bicycle struck by a police vehicle.

Lan Remme v. City of Seattle and State of Washington
Fit cyclists, Lan Remme, hit a dangerous section on the Montlake Bridge. ($4,000,000) WSDOT Bridge Inspectors photo-documented and reported a 2-inch vertical change between concrete sidewalk panels, calling it a Priority One “tripping hazard”. After assigning it a repair number, WSDOT did nothing else. One year later, on April 2, 2011, Lan Remme rode his bicycle onto this Montlake Bridge sidewalk, traveling at 5 mph. According to an eyewitness, at the very point of the 2-inch “tripping hazard”, his front wheel abruptly stopped, pitching him over the handlebars. His helmeted head struck the sidewalk, and he was left motionless. Lan is now an incomplete quadriplegia and suffered serious injuries including right sinus and orbital facial fractures.
John LaMacchia v. Confidential
(2012) John LaMacchia thought it was a perfect day for for a bicycle ride. He rode his bicycle southbound on 25th Ave. NE in Seattle. A man, driving a Mercedes Benz sedan, suddenly and unexpectedly made a left-hand turn directly in front of John. John did not have a chance. Though his bicycle was only traveling about 20 mph, John could not stop before colliding with the passenger’s side of Ralph’s vehicle. John violently struck Ralph’s vehicle head first before being thrown to the pavement. The driver of the Benz was cited for turning left without yielding to oncoming traffic.