Masjedian Law Firm · Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Riders pay the price for drivers who don’t look. We push back on rider bias and prosecute the claim the evidence actually supports.
Riders pay the price for drivers who don’t look. We push back on rider bias and prosecute the claim the evidence actually supports.
Motorcyclists are exposed in a way no other motorist is: the most common serious crash is a driver turning left across a rider’s path, and the rider absorbs all of the trauma. Then a second injury follows — the assumption, by adjusters and sometimes juries, that the rider must have been speeding or reckless. Overcoming that bias is the core craft of motorcycle litigation.
Lane splitting is legal in California. California is the one state that expressly authorizes lane splitting (Vehicle Code § 21658.1). Insurers still argue it as fault. We answer with the statute, reconstruction, and driver-inattention evidence — a legal maneuver is not negligence.
Building the rider’s case. Helmet-cam and dash-cam footage, scene geometry, skid and gouge marks, ECU data from the bike, and prompt witness statements. Because comparative negligence reduces recovery by fault share, every percentage point argued against the rider is money — we contest them all.
Injuries and damages. Road rash, fractures, traumatic brain injury even with a helmet, and spinal injury are common. Damages include current and future medical care, lost income and earning capacity, the motorcycle and gear, and pain and suffering. Serious rider injuries frequently justify policy-limits demands and, where the driver is underinsured, UM/UIM claims through your own coverage.
Why this firm. A firm that will actually try the case changes the settlement math — especially in rider cases, where insurers count on bias discounting. Your file is built for a jury from the start.
Yes. California Vehicle Code § 21658.1 expressly permits motorcycles to ride between lanes of traffic. If an insurer blames a crash on lawful lane splitting, that argument can be met head-on with the statute and a proper reconstruction.
You may. California requires helmets, and the defense will argue it, but a helmet violation only matters to injuries a helmet would have prevented. Fault for the collision itself still lies with the negligent driver, and comparative negligence means partial fault reduces — not eliminates — recovery.
California’s general statute of limitations for personal injury is two years from the date of injury (CCP § 335.1). Shorter deadlines can apply — notably a six-month government claim requirement when a public entity is involved — so it is best to speak with an attorney promptly.
It depends on the severity and permanence of your injuries, your medical treatment and future care needs, lost income, and how cleanly fault can be established. Rider cases are frequently undervalued by insurers betting on bias — which is exactly why they should be prepared for trial.
These cases are handled on a contingency-fee basis. You pay nothing up front and owe no attorney’s fee unless the firm recovers money for you.
Submissions are reviewed directly by the attorney. Confidential.