When a Car and a Bird Collide

I heard about a Bird accident in San Diego last week, and I had to do a double take when I read the article. I quickly remembered that there are electric scooters all over the streets now called Bird scooters! Those things seem very dangerous, so it was less surprising when I began reading that a driver had hit a scooter rider on the street. This case wasn’t a simple case of negligence, however. It took some investigating to determine whether the driver or the rider was at fault.

How the Evidence Exposed the Truth

The article explained that The Kindley Law Firm in San Diego had taken on this case. It took the lawyers quite a bit of work to determine who was responsible for the wreck. Neither the rider nor the driver’s word could be trusted because both parties were adamant that the other party was at fault.

The Kindley lawyers were able to obtain a few witness testimonies and video footage from a nearby traffic camera. Thankfully, all the evidence added up to the same conclusion. The scooter rider was at a crosswalk but had prematurely entered the street before the crosswalk lights began flashing. While the scooter rider contributed fault to the accident, the video footage proved that the driver was texting behind the wheel when they hit the rider in the crosswalk. Clearly, both parties were at fault.

San Diego’s Pure Comparative Fault Law

Because vehicle drivers have a responsibility to remain aware of their surroundings at all times when driving, the driver contributed a larger percentage of fault to the accident than the scooter rider. The driver also injured the scooter rider, whereas the driver suffered no damage from the wreck.

When the scooter rider took the driver to court for the accident, the settlement was adjusted using California’s comparative fault law. The court determined that the scooter rider was 10 percent at fault for the wreck because they entered the crosswalk prematurely. Their damages added up to $80,000, and with a 10 percent fault reduction, they ultimately received $72,000.

Thankfully, the scooter rider’s attorneys found solid evidence to support their case and prove negligence in court. Reading cases like this is intriguing to me since I spend most of my days selling houses. I wish I could spend my time gathering evidence and seeking justice for injured victims. At least I’m taking the time to write this blog and learn more about the law (and about Bird scooters) each night.