A driver who hits a motorcyclist almost never says they were following too closely, misjudged a gap, or simply were not looking. They say the motorcyclist was going too fast, or came out of nowhere, or was not wearing enough gear to be taken seriously. Insurers tend to believe the driver first and ask questions later.
Updated September 2026
This page is attorney advertising. It offers general information about Missouri law and is not legal or medical advice for your situation. Reading this page or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship, which is formed only by a written agreement signed by both you and the firm. Any case results described are specific to the facts of those cases; past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any other matter. Finney Injury Law is licensed to practice law in the State of Missouri. The full disclaimer appears at the bottom of this page.
A motorcycle offers no crash structure, no airbag, and no door panel between the rider and whatever hits them. The injuries that follow a car-motorcycle collision are severe by default, and they are frequently made worse by a claim process that starts from a presumption the rider did something wrong.
That presumption is not evidence. It is a bias, and it shows up in the first police report, the first adjuster call, and sometimes in front of a jury. Answering it takes the same thing every disputed fact takes: reconstruction, data, and a refusal to let the driver's account stand in for proof.
An oncoming driver turns left across a rider's path, having misjudged the motorcycle's speed or simply not registered it as a vehicle worth waiting for. This is the single most common serious car-motorcycle crash pattern, and it happens at intersections throughout the St. Louis metro every day.
A driver changes lanes without a shoulder check and merges directly into a motorcycle riding in what should have been an obvious blind spot check. “I didn't see them” is the standard explanation, and it is a description of the driver's failure to look, not a defense to it.
A pothole, a patch of gravel, an uneven lane joint, or debris in a highway construction zone is a minor annoyance to a car and can be catastrophic to a motorcycle. Where the hazard was created or left unaddressed by a government entity or a construction contractor, that party can bear responsibility alongside or instead of another driver.
Adjusters, and sometimes jurors, start from an assumption that a motorcyclist was speeding, lane-splitting, or riding aggressively, often before any reconstruction has been done. That assumption has to be answered with event data, scene evidence, and witness accounts, not simply denied.
Our client suffered a traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle crash. He had a planned career in the U.S. Navy ahead of him. The crash ended it before it started.
The claim carried the assumption these cases usually do: that a rider hurt badly must have been riding recklessly. It was answered with the evidence of how the crash actually happened and what the injury actually cost him, and the case resolved for $1.25 million.
The settlement did not depend on anyone deciding motorcyclists deserve sympathy. It depended on the same thing every serious injury claim depends on: proof.
The first result below is a motorcycle case. The others are pedestrian and head injury results that share the same dynamic: a vulnerable road user, a driver's account, and a claim that had to be proved rather than assumed. Past results do not guarantee a future outcome.
A traumatic brain injury suffered in a motorcycle crash ended a planned career in the U.S. Navy. Read full story →
A professional musician suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck while crossing the street. The insurer opened at $350,000. Read full story →
A young driver ran a red light and caused a serious head injury affecting memory, vision, and quality of life. We secured the full $250,000 policy limit. Read full story →
Impact damage, tire condition, and the bike's final resting position all carry reconstruction evidence. Photograph everything and keep the motorcycle intact until it has been properly documented.
Impact marks and damage patterns on a helmet, jacket, or gloves corroborate where and how hard the rider was struck, which matters when a driver's account and the physical evidence do not match.
Photograph potholes, gravel, debris, or construction conditions before they are cleared or repaired. If a government entity or contractor is involved, notice deadlines can be short, so this needs to happen quickly.
“They were going too fast” is the default explanation and it is rarely based on anything more than the driver's impression after the fact. Event data, skid evidence, and independent witnesses are what actually establish speed.
Yes. A motorcycle is a motor vehicle under Missouri law, and its rider has the same right to the full use of a lane as any other driver. A motorcyclist is not required to ride at the edge of a lane to accommodate a passing car, and a driver who fails to see a motorcycle in plain view has not thereby made the rider responsible for the failure.
Not as a matter of law, but in practice adjusters and some jurors start from that assumption anyway. It has to be answered with the same reconstruction evidence any disputed crash requires: scene evidence, event data where available, and independent witnesses. Under Missouri's pure comparative fault rule, even a partial finding of fault reduces rather than eliminates a recovery.
Current Missouri law generally requires a helmet for riders under 26; riders 26 and older may not be required to wear one if they carry adequate health insurance coverage. Even where a helmet was not legally required, an insurer may still raise it to argue comparative fault on a head injury claim, and that argument can be answered on the facts of the specific case.
With evidence rather than argument: event data recorder information from the striking vehicle, skid and debris patterns at the scene, damage analysis, and any independent witnesses or camera footage. A driver's impression of a motorcycle's speed in the seconds before a crash is frequently unreliable and rarely matches what the physical evidence shows.
Depending on who was responsible for maintaining that road or work zone, a government entity or a construction contractor may bear responsibility. These claims often carry shorter notice deadlines than an ordinary injury claim, particularly against a government body, so documenting the hazard and getting advice quickly matters more than usual.
Yes. We represented a client whose traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle crash ended a planned career in the U.S. Navy before it began. The claim was built against the standard assumption that a badly hurt rider must have been riding recklessly, and it resolved for $1.25 million.
No cost, no obligation, and nothing is shared outside our firm. We read every message and respond quickly.
The decisions you make in the days after an injury affect your ability to recover fair compensation. Free case review. An attorney personally reviews every case. English- and Spanish-speaking staff available.