Can You Recover Compensation After a Bicycle Accident in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, or DC?

An injured cyclist can recover in all five of these places, though only in Washington DC does ordinary shared fault leave the claim standing. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Alabama still apply the rule that a rider whose own carelessness helped cause the injury takes nothing, however badly the driver behaved.

Those four states have kept the rule on purpose. Maryland’s highest court looked at it again in 2013 and refused to drop it, saying it would not overturn the defense when the General Assembly had repeatedly refused to do so (Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia, 432 Md. 679 (2013)). What is left in each place is a short list of narrow exceptions. For a rider who has been blamed for part of a crash, those exceptions are the whole case.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

What the rule actually does to a bicycle claim

Contributory negligence ends a claim instead of shrinking it, and that is the whole distance between these five places and the rest of the country. Everywhere else, a share of fault trims the payout by whatever percentage the rider carries. In these four states it removes the payout. A rider found one percent responsible for a crash caused overwhelmingly by a driver collects nothing.

Alabama’s Supreme Court tested that at its sharpest edge. The plaintiff in Golden v. McCurry stipulated that he was one percent negligent, then asked the court to replace contributory negligence with a shared-fault rule. The court declined and left the change to the legislature. Most of the country went the other way, and Bicycle Accident Lawyers Group publishes a state-by-state breakdown of which fault rule governs where. Check which of the five systems applies where you were riding before you answer any adjuster, because it decides whether a percentage of blame is even worth arguing about.

Washington DC took cyclists out of the bar

The District kept contributory negligence and then wrote one group of road users out of it. Section 50-2204.52 says that the fault of a pedestrian or vulnerable user hit by a motor vehicle does not bar recovery. It bars recovery only where that fault was a proximate cause of the injury and greater than the combined fault of all the defendants who caused it. A bicycle sits squarely inside the definition of a vulnerable user at § 50-2204.51(13).

Read that test in the statute’s own words instead of as a flat fifty percent rule, because it weighs your share against the defendants’ combined share. The law also leaves the older escape routes alone. Subsection (b)(1) says nothing in the subchapter changes or affects joint and several liability or the last clear chance doctrine, so a DC rider keeps the new threshold and the older arguments together. If you were riding in the District, work out early whether the crash involved a motor vehicle or another vulnerable user, since the statute is built around those two situations.

Find the latest legal internship opportunities, updated daily.

Find Internships →

“The District did not soften contributory negligence, it removed one class of people from it,” says Robert Goldwater bicycle accident attorney at Bicycle Accident Lawyers Group. “A driver suing another driver in DC still meets the one percent bar. A rider hit by that same driver does not. Riders read about the reform and assume it was general, and it never was.”

The four states kept the bar, and each leaves a different way through

No bicycle exception exists in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina or Alabama. A rider there argues the general doctrines that long predate the bicycle question.

Last clear chance asks one narrow question. It asks whether the driver still had a real chance to avoid you after your own mistake had already been made. The heightened-conduct route asks something different, which is whether the driver’s conduct left ordinary carelessness behind altogether.

North Carolina has built that second route into its trial practice. The state’s pattern instruction for motor vehicle cases, N.C.P.I. 102.86, is titled for this exact use. It makes the plaintiff prove the driver’s willful or wanton conduct by the greater weight of the evidence. The route is narrower than its existence suggests. In Yancey v. Lea, 354 N.C. 48 (2001) the state Supreme Court upheld the refusal to give that instruction at all, because the evidence showed a bad passing maneuver and nothing more. Courts there look for intoxication, grossly excessive speed or racing. Ask a lawyer in your own state which of the two routes your facts support, because each needs different evidence and some of it decays within days.

Three of the five wrote the helmet argument out of the law

Virginia, North Carolina and the District each passed a law keeping helmet use away from the fault question, and that matters more here than in a shared-fault state. Where any blame at all ends the claim, an argument you cannot get excluded is one that can cost you everything.

Virginia’s § 46.2-906.1 reaches any action for damages arising out of riding a bicycle. Breaking a local helmet ordinance there “shall not constitute negligence or assumption of risk, be considered in mitigation of damages of whatever nature, be admissible in evidence, or be the subject of comment by counsel.” North Carolina’s § 20-171.9(c) is shorter, and says no negligence or liability shall be assessed on or imputed to any party on account of a violation. The District’s § 50-1606 bars failure to wear a helmet as evidence of negligence per se, contributory negligence or assumption of the risk.

Maryland reads differently. Its bicycle helmet section, § 21-1207.1, sets a rule for riders under sixteen, says it is enforced by warning, and carries no evidence provision at all. The state’s motorcycle helmet section, § 21-1306(e), carries a detailed one. Failure to wear required headgear there may not be treated as evidence of negligence or contributory negligence, may not limit liability, and may not reduce recovery. Ask what your own helmet law actually says before you accept that riding without one weakens your position.

“Virginia, North Carolina and the District each put the helmet question beyond argument in their own code,” Goldwater says. “Maryland’s bicycle section does not carry that language and its motorcycle section does. A Maryland rider should raise that gap with a lawyer there early, not discover it once an adjuster has built a file around it.”

Discover the latest legal jobs and career openings.

View Jobs →

What sets the percentage is built in the first hours

Evidence decides your share of the blame, and in these five places that share decides whether a claim exists at all. Most of the useful evidence is gone within the hour, and the account that fills the gap is usually the driver’s.

• Call the police and record the report number. An unreported crash leaves two competing stories and nothing neutral between them, which is the exact condition this defense is built for.
• Photograph the scene before it clears. Where the bike and the car came to rest, the debris, the lane markings, the signal timing, the light available, and what the driver could see coming.
• Take witness names and numbers yourself. Bystanders leave quickly and the report rarely catches all of them.
• Say what happened and stop there. An apology at the roadside is testimony, not manners, and it reaches the adjuster as a percentage.
• See a doctor the same day. A gap between the crash and the first examination is the most common argument for calling an injury unrelated.

“In a shared-fault state a bad roadside admission costs a rider money,” Goldwater says. “In Maryland or Virginia the same sentence can cost them the case. The urge to be polite about it is the one thing riders here most need to know they can set aside.”

Watch the filing deadline while you do all of this, because it varies across the five. Virginia gives two years for injury claims under Va. Code § 8.01-243(A), and Maryland gives three under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Confirm yours before anything else, because none of the exceptions above survives a missed date.