Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents motorcycle accident victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. In 2023 (the most recent year for which data is currently available), 69 motorcyclists were killed or injured on San Jose roads — placing San Jose 14th among California's 15 largest cities in motorcycle crash victims, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety. That ranking reflects a serious problem in a high-volume traffic environment. Motorcyclists are exposed in ways that other road users are not. When a crash happens, the injuries are rarely minor.

Why Motorcycle Accident Cases Are Different

Motorcycle accident cases involve the same negligence framework as other vehicle collision claims, but with two complications that consistently arise. First, juries hold preexisting biases against motorcyclists — assumptions about speed, recklessness, and risk-taking that are not supported by the facts of most crashes. Second, the injuries are typically more severe, which means the damages are higher and the insurance industry fights harder to limit recovery.

The most common cause of serious motorcycle accidents in San Jose is the left-turn collision — a driver turning left across an oncoming motorcyclist's path. Vehicle Code § 21801(a) requires a driver intending to turn left to yield to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction close enough to constitute a hazard. A failure to yield that causes a collision is a Vehicle Code violation and may establish negligence per se under CACI No. 418.

Other common causes and the statutes that apply:

• Vehicle Code § 22350 — basic speed law violations by drivers who strike motorcyclists
• Vehicle Code § 22107 — unsafe lane changes by drivers who fail to check blind spots before merging into a motorcycle
• Vehicle Code § 21703 — following too closely, which causes rear-end strikes on motorcyclists
• Vehicle Code § 23123 — distracted driving by a motorist using a handheld phone

Lane Splitting

California is the only state that expressly permits lane splitting. Vehicle Code § 21658.1 defines lane splitting as riding a motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane. The statute authorizes the California Highway Patrol to develop lane splitting guidelines. Lane splitting is legal — a motorcyclist injured while lane splitting is not automatically at fault. Whether lane splitting was safe under the circumstances is a factual question for the jury under the basic speed law and the general duty of care.

Helmet Law and Comparative Fault

Vehicle Code § 27803 requires all motorcycle riders and passengers to wear a helmet that meets federal safety standards. A defense attorney will argue that a motorcyclist who was not wearing a helmet was comparatively at fault, at least as to head injury damages. Under California's pure comparative fault system established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, any comparative fault reduces recovery proportionately — it does not eliminate the claim. Even a motorcyclist found partially at fault recovers a portion of proven damages.

Damages

Motorcycle accident injuries frequently involve traumatic brain injury, spinal cord damage, road rash requiring skin grafts, fractured limbs, and internal organ damage. Civil Code § 3333 sets the measure of tort damages as the amount that will compensate for all detriment proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, whether anticipated or not. Civil Code § 3283 allows recovery for future losses reasonably certain to occur.

In catastrophic injury cases, recoverable damages include past and future medical expenses, lost earnings and diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and the cost of ongoing care. A pre-existing condition does not bar recovery — the eggshell plaintiff doctrine holds the defendant responsible for the full extent of harm caused, including aggravation of prior injuries.

Claims Against Government Entities

Dangerous road conditions — uneven pavement, missing lane markings, defective guardrails, inadequate signage — that contribute to a motorcycle crash may give rise to a claim against a public entity under Government Code § 835. That statute imposes liability on a public entity for injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property if the entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition in time to protect against it. Government Code § 911.2 requires that a claim be filed with the public entity within six months of the incident. Missing this deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit against a government defendant. Tolling doctrines may apply — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the timeline in your case.

Filing Deadline — Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Missing this deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit. Tolling doctrines may apply depending on the facts — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court

Motorcycle accident cases filed in San Jose are heard at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. All limited and unlimited civil cases must be filed at the Downtown Superior Court under Local Civil Rule 1(C). E-filing is mandatory for represented parties. Cases estimated to take more than one day at trial require a Mandatory Settlement Conference before the trial assignment hearing, with the MSC Statement due no later than five court days before the conference.

Related Pages

• San Jose Personal Injury Attorney
• San Jose Car Accident Attorney
• San Jose Bicycle Accident Attorney
• San Jose Uninsured Motorist Attorney
• San Jose Traumatic Brain Injury Attorney
• San Jose Spinal Cord Injury Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles motorcycle accident cases throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.