The Role of Motorcycle Modifications in Accident Liability Cases

Motorcycle riders often make modifications and customizations to their bikes for aesthetic or performance reasons. However, these changes can become a legal issue if the rider is involved in an accident. Modifications that affect the safety or handling of a motorcycle may impact determinations of liability and negligence in accident cases. Aftermarket parts and removals of stock equipment can draw criticism, but reckless riding behavior generally supersedes debates around customized components.

Aftermarket Parts and Negligence Per Se

Many riders install aftermarket parts like handlebars, exhausts, air filters, and braking components on their motorcycles. If an accident occurs, the opposing legal team may argue that unapproved parts caused or contributed to the crash. They can claim that the modifications amount to negligence per se, or negligence as a matter of law, if the parts violated safety laws or regulations.

For example, installing extremely loud exhausts that exceed local noise limits is typically illegal. If the loud noise startles another driver who then crashes into the motorcycle, their lawyer may argue negligence per se because the exhaust violated noise laws. However, the motorcyclist’s lawyer could counter that the illegal exhaust was not a significant factor in the accident. Demonstrating that the exhaust did not actually cause the collision can defeat claims of negligence per se.

Plaintiff lawyers often point to any violation of vehicle code provisions as foundations for negligence per se allegations. Common examples beyond exhaust noise limits include using unapproved lighting, removing mandated reflectors, or altering parts that affect emissions control systems. However, defense attorneys can argue that violations did not directly cause the accident, were not substantial factors, or are overruled by the defendant’s own negligent actions like distracted or impaired driving.

Successfully asserting negligence per se also requires showing that the injured party was among those the regulation sought to protect and that the injury resulted from the hazard the rule aimed to prevent. The defense can argue that these criteria are not necessarily met by many common motorcycle modifications.

Suspension and Brake Modifications

Aftermarket suspension components and brake upgrades are popular modifications among sportbike and cruiser riders who want better handling and braking. But custom springs, shocks, rotors, brake lines, and brake pads can become issues after a motorcycle accident.

The opposing side may claim that racing-style suspensions made the bike unstable or that oversized rotors and pads decreased stopping distance too much. Expert witnesses may be needed to assess and rebut these types of allegations against suspension and brake modifications.

Significant suspension and brake changes can complicate accident liability if they deviate too far from the motorcycle’s original certified configuration. More moderate upgrades generally do not face the same liability risks in court. Extensive modifications may raise questions about the vehicle’s integrity, while minimally altered parts have less impact on liability.

The defense can counter such arguments by demonstrating that dangerous riding, not modified components, caused the collision. For example, if a motorcyclist loses control taking a high-speed corner on a bike with aftermarket shocks, their lawyer can still show that excessive speed – not the shocks themselves – led to the crash.

Removal of Safety Equipment

Some riders remove stock safety equipment from their motorcycles, such as mirrors, reflectors, horns, and turn signals. Many motorcyclists consider these items unnecessary for street use and remove them for styling preferences or performance gains.

Plaintiff attorneys often argue that the absence of factory safety gear contributed to the accident. They claim the bike was less visible on the road without reflectors, or that it is hard to discern the rider’s intentions without signals.

However, the defendant can counter that other drivers should have still seen the motorcycle and exercised reasonable caution around it. Skilled defense lawyers keep the focus on the actions of the plaintiff driver, rather than the removed motorcycle parts.

They may also argue that turn signals do not necessarily make a motorcycle’s next move clear. For example, if a bike has its right signal on but then turns left, the signal did not indicate what actually happened. So, removing signals alone does not prove negligence unless other conditions are present.

Non-DOT Approved Helmets and Gear

Wearing non-Department of Transportation (DOT) approved helmets and riding gear can also influence liability debates after motorcycle accidents. Many riders prefer non-certified helmets from Europe or carbon fiber options with custom graphics. Plaintiffs may assert that a non-compliant helmet offered inadequate impact protection or vision coverage.

Defendants can counter that conformity with DOT standards would not have changed injury outcomes. The defense can also provide expert testimony showing that the gear worn exceeded DOT guidelines and better protected the rider, regardless of labels.

Any questions raised about helmets and gear focus more on actual protection versus regulatory certification. Non-DOT compliance alone is rarely enough to substantiate liability without other contributing factors.

Reckless Riding and Accident Liability

Most importantly, reckless riding often supersedes debates around motorcycle modifications. Speeding, improper passing, wheelies, ignoring traffic signals, and other dangerous riding overrides questions about customized parts and equipment.

An unlawful exhaust or non-DOT helmet pales in comparison to behaviors like gross speeding, racing, or stunt riding. Even extensive modifications to a motorcycle do not supersede liability for conspicuously reckless actions leading to an accident.

Skilled defense lawyers from Pencheff & Fraley keep the focus on demonstrable rider negligence rather than modified parts. They work to establish that the plaintiff’s own behaviors were the proximate cause of the collision, not the bike’s modifications.

Expert Witnesses

In contentious accident cases involving modified motorcycles, expert witnesses often come into play. Accident reconstructionists analyze physical evidence and testify whether modifications contributed to the incident. Engineers can assess if the changes affected stability, handling, or manufacturers’ specifications.

Medical experts are also key for testimony on how injuries may have been impacted, if at all, by non-standard helmets and gear. Their analysis aims to rebut assumptions about how DOT compliance or other factors would have changed injury outcomes.

In complex cases, multiple experts from different specialties are often required. Skilled lawyers choose experts wisely to create doubts around allegations against modifications. They aim to shift the focus back to actual negligent actions as the cause.

With an experienced attorney from Pencheff & Fraley and prudent experts as backup, well-reasoned legal defenses typically overcome accusations against motorcycle modifications.

If you’ve been involved in a motorcycle accident, speak to us today.

You can visit our offices at:

• Westerville – 4151 Executive Pkwy, Suite 355, Westerville, OH 43081
• Mansfield – 33 S. Lexington-Springmill Rd, Mansfield, OH 44906.

Call now for a free consultation on (614) 224-4114.