02

Blog

The Case for Strict Liability in Our Biking Laws

A Model for Bike Law Reform

At sea a boat under power must give way to a more vulnerable craft.  The law requires that a power driven vessel give way to a sailing vessel.  A sail boat must give way to a craft engaged in fishing. These simple rules are consistent with the maxim that with greater power comes greater responsibility.

Shouldn’t this sea-faring burden shifting apply on our nation’s roads as well?  Shouldn’t a motor vehicle be required to give way to a more vulnerable road user, like a person on a bicycle?  And where a collision occurs between the two shouldn’t the driver bear the burden to prove that they were not at fault?  Under our present legal system the injured victim has the burden of proving that the driver was negligent in having caused the crash.

Strict Liability Is The Law In Other Areas

In other areas the law requires a greater burden of those in a greater position of power to protect the more vulnerable.  Beginning in the 1950s and 1960s, courts and legislatures nationwide began rendering decisions and passing laws giving greater protection to consumers over manufacturing interests that placed dangerous products into the stream of commerce.  No longer, under many circumstances, would the person injured by a dangerous product have to prove that a company was negligent in the way it made its product to receive compensation for injuries. Instead the manufacturer was strictly liable for placing an unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce unless it could prove that the injured person misused the product or assumed a known risk.  

In dog bite cases, many states have done away with the notorious “one-bite rule” which often let dog owners off the hook where the animal injured someone unless the owner knew it had a propensity for viciousness.  It was the victim’s burden to prove the dog owner’s prior knowledge. Modern dog bite statutes have largely done away with this requirement and now hold dog owners strictly liable for injury or death caused by the animal unless they can prove that the dog was provoked in some way, or that the victim was unlawfully on the dog owner’s property.    The reasoning behind these important burden shifts was that both the product manufacturers and animal owners were in a much better position to prevent the harm than the victims. Manufacturers can design safeguards against harm, and dog owners can build fences. At minimum both can warn against the potential for danger.

Strict Liability Should Be The Law In Car vs. Bike Crashes

Cities and towns in many regions of the United States have invested considerable resources towards encouraging travel by bicycle.  Bike specific infrastructure has been built. Bike share companies have been invited into many cities and towns. This is a good thing.  Bicycle travel reduces our nation’s reliance on oil, is far less harmful to the environment, and promotes good health amongst a population facing an obesity epidemic.  In the long term, encouraging bike travel can save municipalities money because bikes do not place as much wear and tear on infrastructure as do much heavier and powerful cars, trucks and buses.  Yet, for all of this positive effort the basic legal structure for proving wrongdoing remains strangely anachronistic. When a driver strikes and harms a bicyclist it is the bicyclist who must prove that the driver was negligent in some way.  

This burden can be a difficult one to meet. Often the bicyclist will be on their own and will lack a witness to help them prove fault. If the bicyclist is killed or sustains a memory debilitating head injury they may not have any knowledge of how the crash occurred.  In the situation where the injured bicyclist can accurately recall the facts of a collision, in the one person’s word against another’s situation, the widespread societal assumption that biking amongst motor vehicle traffic is inherently reckless works against the injured cyclist.  A driver involved in a collision with a bicyclist will rarely if ever sustain injury. Sometimes the driver will have a passenger that can corroborate their version of events. Driving requires little physical exertion. Acceleration, braking and turning is done with ease relative to the same actions on a bicycle which require greater physical coordination and moderate strength.  Often, the driver will be in a much better position to avoid a collision.

Consider the dooring crash: Bicyclists are encouraged to avoid being struck by an opening car door by riding several feet to the left of parked cars, and to look for activity in parked vehicles that might warn of an imminent door opening. However, even when bicyclists use these precautions doorings happen.  On the other hand, it is very easy for a driver to avoid a dooring incident. All they have to do is look for bicyclists before opening their door. That’s it. The driver is in a greater position to prevent a dooring crash, and is thus in the greater position of power. Where a dooring injures or kills a bicyclist the driver should bear the burden of proving their lack of fault. The driver may avoid liability by proving that they looked but could not see the bicyclist because it was dark and the biker was riding without a headlight.  But the claim should begin with the legal presumption of fault by the driver.

Under our present system the burden is placed on the vulnerable road user to prove fault committed by the person in the position of greater power.  This creates a circumstance under which many injured bicyclists are left uncompensated for expensive medical bills, lost wages and damaged property.  Knowing that the bicyclist has the burden of proving fault, insurance companies that cover motorists are incentivized to defend the driver and force the bicyclist into lengthy and expensive litigation.  People who would like to ride their bikes more are discouraged from doing so, knowing the law may not be there to protect them if something goes wrong.

In not adopting strict liability in motor vehicle versus bicycle collisions the United States is behind other western nations.  In much of Western Europe it is difficult for a driver to escape responsibility for harming a bicyclist. For example, Article 185 of the Dutch Road Safety Act of 1994 requires that, “As a driver you are liable when you crash into a cyclist.”  A driver will only escape some responsibility if they can prove that the crash was unforeseeable or out of their control. Strict Liability in Cycling Laws to Ready the Roads for Environmentally Friendly Commuting, Colleen Maker, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol. 42, Issue 2, April 24, 2015, page 487.  Ontario, Canada has also adopted this common sense model.  Section 193(1) of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act states, “When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle.”  This “reverse onus” provides significantly greater protection to bicyclists than does the present legal scheme in place throughout the United States.

Model Statutory Language

A model strict liability statute for the United States, which would protect all vulnerable road users, bicyclists among them, is proposed as follows:

As used herein, the term “vulnerable road user” includes a pedestrian, including those persons actually engaged in work upon a highway, or in work upon utility facilities along a highway, or engaged in the provision of emergency services within the right-of-way; or a person operating or riding a human powered vehicle including a bicycle, tricycle,   skateboard, in-line skates, scooter or wheelchair.

If a driver of a motor vehicle injures any vulnerable road user the driver of such motor vehicle is liable in civil damages to such vulnerable road user for the full amount of the injury proximately caused thereby, unless the injured person is shown to be the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries.

Under this proposed model a driver may escape liability if they can prove that the bicyclist’s conduct was the sole cause of the collision.  Otherwise, the driver’s only other defenses would be to demonstrate that the injuries claimed are not causally related to the crash, and/or that the bicyclist’s injuries are not as significant as he or she claims.  Under this equitable system the driver receives due process and the vulnerable road user receives a rebuttable presumption in his or her favor. Of course, this legal model alone will not prevent all collisions between bikes and cars.  Our infrastructure needs continued evolution towards bike friendliness and our car loving culture requires a significant shift. However, fixing the law to reflect and correct the existing power imbalance will encourage people to pedal more and drive less and provide increased protection when a collision occurs.

Comments

Peter Wilborn Oct 02, 2018

October is a big month in the triathlon world, with the Kona Ironman World Championships on the 13th. So it is good news that Triathlete Magazine chose its October issue to focus on bicycle safety and advocacy. Bike Law Director (and our resident triathlete) Rachael Maney was featured and interviewed in the piece. She shared […]

Read More
Peter Wilborn Sep 28, 2018

Chicago has become one of the nation’s top cycling cities, but along with more has come an increase in dooring crashes. A Chicago news channel has covered the issue and interviewed attorney Brendan Kevenides, Bike Law’s legal resource in Illinois. Brendan explained the growing risk to cyclists and how the “Dutch Reach” can help.  The […]

Read More
Amy Benner Johnson Sep 21, 2018

Drivers are coming within less than 1.5 feet of cyclists on the road in Knoxville with alarming regularity. Drivers are coming within less than two feet of cyclists on the road in Knoxville with alarming regularity. It’s not your imagination. It’s not all in your head. Your combined senses of touch, sound, and sight all […]

Read More
Rachael Maney Sep 12, 2018

You may have already seen the video below. If you haven’t, please watch. On Tuesday, August 24th just before 7PM, Jeff McCord and approximately 20 other cyclists were stopped at the intersection of Karl Daly and Grants Mill Road in Irondale, Alabama, a town outside the city of Birmingham. As McCord waited for an ambulance […]

Read More
Rachael Maney Aug 30, 2018

In 2010, Richmond, California got lucky when Brooklyn born Najari Smith planted roots in the Bay Area city, quickly claiming a very important role in his new community. Having given more than 1,100 bikes to Richmond’s youth and community members in the last 6 years, Najari’s vision and mission to promote a bike-centric lifestyle has […]

Read More
Bruce Hagen Jul 17, 2018

On July 11, 2018, a very experienced rider and friend to many in the Rockdale County area, Albert “Ab” Roesel, was killed while out on a rural road doing a ride that he no doubt had done many times before.  Ab was 75 years old.   The police investigation concluded that Ab had been headed Southbound, […]

Read More
Brendan Kevenides Jun 04, 2018

At sea a boat under power must give way to a more vulnerable craft.  The law requires that a power driven vessel give way to a sailing vessel.  A sail boat must give way to a craft engaged in fishing. These simple rules are consistent with the maxim that with greater power comes greater responsibility. […]

Read More
Commuter Bike
Bruce Hagen May 29, 2018

Recently, my wife and I moved into a new home that’s closer to my office, which has allowed me to start commuting by bike.  I rode my bike to and from my office 4 consecutive days before my schedule forced me back into the car. My hope and plan is to commute by bike at […]

Read More
Pat Brown May 10, 2018

Strength, ambition, and courage are just a few words that come to mind when we think of Anthony Lue.  Growing up, Anthony enjoyed playing competitive sports such as baseball, volleyball, basketball and mountain biking, but his true passion was discovered on his high school track.    After winning gold for 100m hurdles at the provincial championships […]

Read More
Lauri Boxer-Macomber Apr 30, 2018

Following a horrific bicycle crash in 2016, Dr. Michael Rifkin has become a new type of bicycling advocate — one who is deeply committed to ending distracted driving. Read his op-ed on Making Distracted Driving in Maine Taboo here. Dr. Rifkin’s piece reminds us that we can be distracted by our phones and other electronic devices even […]

Read More
Brian Weiss Apr 26, 2018

On November 21, 2017, I saw a TV news story about how the Broomfield District Attorney’s Office was routinely offering lax plea deals to drivers that injure cyclists.  In bicycle crash cases with injuries, the DA was offering plead deals to “broken headlight” or “defective vehicle” charges. A “defective vehicle” sentence is one of the […]

Read More
Atlanta's Bike Czar
Bruce Hagen Apr 19, 2018

Who is looking for a great job in a dynamic city with a great opportunity to make bicycle advocacy not just a passion, but a full time, rewarding and well-paying job?   The City of Atlanta is in search of a a new Chief Bicycle Officer to replace the outgoing CBO, Superstar Becky Katz, who after […]

Read More
Load More