Every rider's case starts with a strike against it: the assumption that the person on the bike was the reckless one. We do not accept that framing, and we do not let adjusters or juries accept it either. The Vertanous Firm has recovered more than $60 Million for injured Californians, including a $2.5 Million settlement at mediation for catastrophic injuries from a motor vehicle collision, and we build every motorcycle case the same way: for trial, around the driver's choices, not the stereotype.
The Real Fight
Here is what no adjuster will say out loud: motorcycle claims get discounted because of who was on the bike, not what happened on the road. The file gets read through a stereotype. The rider was speeding. The rider was weaving. The rider assumed the risk by riding at all. Jurors can walk in carrying the same assumptions, and defense lawyers know it.
We answer the bias the only way it can be answered: by making the case about choices, in seconds, on a specific stretch of road. The driver who turned left across your lane on Colorado Boulevard without yielding. The commuter who drifted into you on the 210 with a phone in one hand. The mirror that was never checked before the lane change on the 134. When the case is tried on the driver's choices, the stereotype has nowhere to stand. That is the discipline we bring to every crash case, and you can see how it works in our Pasadena car accident practice: build for trial, and make the carrier price the case that a jury will actually hear.
Lane Splitting
Start with the law, because the adjuster will not. Vehicle Code section 21658.1 expressly recognizes lane splitting: riding a motorcycle between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane. Done safely, it is lawful. California is the state that put that rule in the Vehicle Code.
Why does that matter? Because the first move in almost every lane-splitting crash claim is the same: the carrier treats the split lane as the end of the analysis. Rider between lanes, rider at fault, claim discounted. The law says otherwise. A split lane does not equal fault. Fault turns on what both people did: the rider's speed and position, and the driver's sudden unsignaled lane change, the drift across the lane line, the door of frustration swung into the gap. Drivers owe lane-splitting riders the same duty of care they owe everyone else on the road.
We reconstruct these crashes properly: where the bike was, how fast traffic was moving, what the driver could see, and what the driver did. When the evidence shows a legal split and an inattentive driver, we say so, and we make the carrier defend the driver's choices instead of prosecuting yours.
Comparative Fault
California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Fault is divided in percentages, and your recovery is reduced by your share, never erased by it. A rider found 30 percent at fault still recovers 70 percent of their damages. In a serious injury case, that percentage fight is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes far more.
Adjusters know this, which is why the opening fault assessment on a motorcycle claim is routinely inflated. Fifty percent on the rider, sight unseen. We treat that number as what it is: a negotiating position, not a finding. Then we attack it with evidence. And when the driver broke a safety rule, the law sharpens the attack: under Evidence Code section 669, a driver's violation of a safety statute can establish negligence per se, shifting the fight onto ground the defense does not want to occupy.
The percentage is decided by proof, not by assumption. Our job is to make sure the proof is in the file before anyone talks numbers.
Hurt riding? Tell us what happened.
Free Case ReviewThe Injuries
A rider has no crumple zone, no airbag, and no second chance at the point of impact. The same collision that dents a sedan breaks a body. We represent riders with fractures, often multiple and often requiring surgical hardware; road rash deep enough to need debridement and grafting; shoulder, knee, and spinal injuries; and the injury that shadows so many motorcycle cases even when a helmet did its job: traumatic brain injury. Concussion, post-concussive syndrome, memory problems, personality change. If your family says you have not been the same since the crash, that observation is evidence, and we know how to develop it. It is the entire focus of our California traumatic brain injury practice.
Serious rider injuries also mean serious future costs: revision surgeries, hardware removal, therapy, and care that continues long after the case would settle if the carrier had its way. Tom Vertanous publishes on the medicine behind these cases and works with treating physicians and life-care planners to project what future care will actually cost. The demand the carrier receives is not a form letter. It is the case they will face at trial.
The Helmet Question
California requires helmets. Vehicle Code section 27803 makes an approved helmet mandatory for riders and passengers alike. If you were wearing one, that fact goes in the file early and often, because it takes a favorite defense argument off the table before it starts.
If you were not wearing one, hear this clearly: your case does not end. The helmet has nothing to do with who caused the crash. The driver who turned across your lane is just as responsible for the collision whether your helmet was on your head or on your handlebar. At most, helmet evidence bears on particular injuries, and even there the defense must actually prove the connection rather than simply gesture at it.
The misuse is predictable: the defense leans on helmet guilt to discount everything, including the shattered leg a helmet never protects. We hold the argument to its actual limits, keep the jury's eyes on the cause of the crash, and refuse the discount. Do not let a helmet question talk you out of a phone call.
Evidence
Motorcycle cases are won with physical evidence, because physical evidence has no bias. We move fast to preserve it:
Every one of these has a clock on it. The earlier we start, the stronger the case.
First Things First
The insurance company starts working the file the day of the crash. You should too. The order of operations:
Adrenaline masks injury, and rider injuries are frequently internal. Emergency room or urgent care, same day. Describe every symptom, including the ones that seem small.
The collision report preserves the officer's diagram, the witnesses, and any citation issued to the driver.
The bike, the car, the road markings, the debris, the intersection, your gear, and your visible injuries. Photographs end arguments that memories start.
Unrepaired, unwashed, unsold. The gear and the bike are the physical record of the crash.
An independent witness who saw the driver drift is worth more than any argument we can make.
Give the basics. Do not give the other driver's carrier a recorded statement, and do not guess at speeds or distances.
The defense will read every post. A single photo from a weekend ride becomes an exhibit about your "recovery."
The legal clock is measured in years. The evidence clock is measured in days. The consultation is free.
Deadlines
The general rule is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Two years feels like a long time. It is not, and for some riders it is not even the real deadline.
If the road itself contributed to your crash, a pothole or pavement defect, a missing or obscured sign, a signal that failed, a dangerous design that funneled traffic into conflict, then part of your case may run against a city, a county, or the state. Claims against public entities run on far shorter deadlines, measured in months, not years, and they die quietly when riders wait. Roadway cases against public entities are this firm's signature work: see our dangerous condition of public property practice, built on a jury verdict against the City of Los Angeles.
Evidence has the shortest clock of all. Camera footage is overwritten in days. The car gets repaired. The road gets resurfaced. Witnesses scatter. Call early, even if you are still deciding. The consultation costs nothing, and our Pasadena personal injury team responds the same day.
Find out what your case is actually worth.
Free Case ReviewIf we don't win, you don't pay.
The consultation is free. The representation is on contingency. If there is no recovery, you owe no attorney fee.
Questions We Hear Every Week
Yes. California is the state that expressly recognizes lane splitting: Vehicle Code section 21658.1 defines it and authorizes it when done safely. Riding between lanes of stopped or slow traffic is not a violation, and it is not automatic fault. If an adjuster tells you the crash is on you because you were splitting lanes, that is an argument, not the law.
No. California follows pure comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. Even a rider found partly at fault recovers the rest of their damages. A rider found 30 percent at fault still recovers 70 percent. Adjusters open with inflated fault numbers because it discounts the claim. The percentage is decided by evidence, and it is worth fighting over.
Yes. California law requires helmets, and not wearing one is a mistake, but it does not decide who caused the crash. The driver who turned across your lane is still responsible for the collision. Helmet evidence goes, at most, to particular injuries, not to liability, and the defense routinely stretches it further than the law allows. Do not let a helmet argument talk you out of calling.
It usually helps yours. Drivers owe every roadway user the duty to look, and to see what is there to be seen. A motorcycle with a headlamp on is visible. In most crashes, "I never saw him" translates to "I never looked," and we build the case to prove exactly that: sightlines, timing, phone records, and the physical evidence of where you were and how long you were there.
No honest lawyer can give you a number at the first call. Value turns on liability, the medicine, the available insurance, and how well the case is built. What drives the number: medical expenses past and future, lost earnings and earning capacity, and the human damages a jury may award for pain, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life. In serious rider injury cases, future care is often the largest component.
Generally two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. But if the road itself contributed, a pavement defect, a missing sign, a dangerous design, claims against public entities run on far shorter deadlines measured in months, not years. Evidence disappears even faster. Call before you assume you have time.
Nothing out of pocket. We work on contingency: the consultation is free, we advance the costs, and if there is no recovery you owe no attorney fee.
Client Reviews
Ani A., Glendalevia Yelp"The guy who hit me had a low max coverage. I don't know what magic Vertanous Firm worked, but I got paid for my damages less than a year out from my accident, and was paid three times more than the policy limit."
Tony K., Burbankvia Yelp"Tom is the absolute best. He knows the law and he also knows medicine. One meeting with Tom and he was able to understand the medicine behind my condition and find the appropriate doctors."
Bobby S., Los Angelesvia Yelp"Tom is a straight shooter and he's whip-smart. He treated my case as though it were his own. He has a gift for compassion that sets him apart from other legal professionals."
Where We Work
From our office at 301 N. Lake Ave in Pasadena, we represent injured riders across the San Gabriel Valley and all of Los Angeles County, in English, Armenian, and Farsi.
Contact
Call, text, email, or send a brief message. We respond the same day. Free consultation. No fee unless we win.
