At our firm, we know firsthand how vulnerable motorcyclists are on the road, and how life can change in an instant after a crash. Our team at The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. is dedicated to standing up for injured riders and their families in Westfield and throughout Union County.
We’ve seen the serious injuries and unique challenges motorcyclists face, including the unfair bias that can affect how claims are handled. Our approach is rooted in fighting for your right to full compensation, from countering assumptions about rider fault to making sure your injuries are truly understood.
We guide every client through the complex rules that apply to New Jersey motorcycle claims, including why the verbal threshold usually doesn’t limit your recovery and how we prove liability in cases where the facts are often disputed. Our experience helps us anticipate the tactics insurers may use and build a strong claim for what you’re owed.
If you or a loved one has been hurt in a motorcycle accident, let our team handle the legal work while you focus on recovery. Reach out today for a free, no-obligation conversation about your options and how we can help.
New Jersey's verbal threshold (the limitation-on-lawsuit option, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8(a)) applies to people entitled to PIP benefits under an auto policy. A motorcycle is not an "automobile" under the No-Fault Act, and a rider is not a "pedestrian" for PIP purposes, so a rider hurt on a motorcycle generally has no PIP and is not bound by the threshold.
Because motorcycles are not required to carry the PIP coverage that triggers the threshold, a motorcyclist is generally free to pursue noneconomic damages, pain and suffering, without first proving the injury meets one of the six statutory categories that bind most car occupants.
This is a meaningful advantage, because the threshold is often the central battleground in a car-occupant's claim. For a motorcyclist, the focus shifts to proving the other driver's fault and the full extent of the personal injury case rather than clearing a statutory hurdle. A rider's own policy facts should always be confirmed, since particular coverage choices can affect the analysis in an individual case. Still, the general rule that motorcyclists fall outside the verbal threshold is a significant point in their favor and shapes how the claim is approached from the very start.
Does the verbal threshold limit a motorcyclist's claim in New Jersey?
Generally no. Motorcycles are not "automobiles" required to carry no-fault PIP coverage, so motorcycle riders are usually not bound by the verbal threshold and may sue for pain and suffering without proving the injury fits one of the statute's six categories. That makes a rider's right to recover broader than an injured car accident driver's.
Motorcyclists confront a particular obstacle that car occupants do not: a tendency, among some drivers, insurers, and even jurors, to assume the rider was reckless or somehow at fault simply for being on a motorcycle. This bias can color how a crash is investigated, how an insurer values a claim, and how a jury hears it, and answering it directly is a real and recurring part of representing injured riders.
Federal crash data shows how often the other vehicle's movement is involved: in 2023, the other vehicle was turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking in 46 percent (1,588 of 3,419) of fatal two-vehicle motorcycle crashes nationwide (NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts: Motorcycles, 2023 Data).
Drivers who turn across, merge into, or pull out in front of a rider cause many of these crashes. Countering the assumption of rider fault with the objective evidence of how the crash actually happened, such as the other vehicle’s movement, is central to protecting a motorcyclist’s claim.
Union County recorded 27 fatal crashes, 29 traffic deaths, and 4,912 injury crashes in 2025, and Westfield itself had 1 traffic death and 104 injury crashes that year (NJDOT crash data).
Motorcyclists in the Westfield area navigate various types of roads, each exhibiting unique crash characteristics. Here's a breakdown of the key routes:
Each of these routes presents distinct safety concerns:
By breaking down the information into sections, we can capture the essential details while improving clarity and readability.
The classic motorcycle crash is the left-turn collision, in which an oncoming driver turns across a rider's path at an intersection, having misjudged the motorcycle's speed or simply not seen it.
Lane-change crashes, drivers pulling out from side streets or parking spaces, and road hazards that a car would shrug off but that can unseat a rider all recur in these cases. Identifying exactly how a crash happened, and which driver failed in their duty to the rider, is the starting point for establishing fault and answering any attempt to shift blame onto the motorcyclist.
Because the bias against riders so often surfaces as an argument that the motorcyclist was at fault, New Jersey's comparative-fault rule is a frequent battleground in these claims. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1, an injured rider can recover as long as their share of fault is not greater than that of the defendant, or of all defendants combined, that is, 50 percent or less.
The rider's share reduces the award, and a rider found more than 50 percent at fault recovers nothing. Every percentage point of fault an insurer can shift onto the rider reduces the recovery, which is exactly why the bias is so often weaponized in these cases.
The defense will often point to speed, lane position, or the absence of certain gear to suggest rider fault, and countering those arguments with the facts is essential. Objective evidence of how the crash happened, such as the other driver's left turn across the rider's path, the lane change into the motorcycle, and the failure to yield from a side street, usually establishes that the other driver bore primary responsibility. Building the claim on that evidence, rather than letting the assumption of rider recklessness go unanswered, is what protects the recovery.
A motorcyclist is exposed in a way a car occupant is not, and the injuries reflect that exposure. Head injuries, including traumatic brain injury even when a helmet is worn, are a leading concern, as are spinal-cord injuries that can cause paralysis. Orthopedic injuries, fractures of the legs, arms, pelvis, and wrists, are extremely common, often requiring surgery and hardware, and severe road rash can cause permanent scarring and require skin grafting.
These injuries tend toward the severe and the permanent, which shapes the claim. Because a motorcyclist is generally outside the verbal threshold, the full range of these injuries can support a claim for both economic and non-economic damages without the statutory hurdle a car driver would face, except when a public entity is responsible.
In road-defect claims against a public entity, pain-and-suffering damages are only available for a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement, or dismemberment with medical expenses over $3,600, and punitive damages are barred.
A rider with serious injuries may be taken to University Hospital in Newark, the state-designated Level I trauma center for northern New Jersey and the nearest designated trauma center to Westfield, about 13 miles away. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Rahway, about 5 miles away, offers urgent medical care but is not a designated trauma center. Documenting the complete, long-term picture of these injuries, including their permanent effects, is essential to valuing a motorcycle claim fairly.
New Jersey requires motorcycle riders and passengers to wear protective helmets. If the defense claims a rider's lack of a helmet made an injury worse, it must prove that a compliant helmet would have prevented or reduced that specific injury. Helmet use has no bearing on who caused the crash.
The defense may try to argue that a rider's injuries were worsened by a helmet issue, but this argument has limits. It must be tied to the specific injuries at issue rather than used as a blanket reduction. A head injury sustained despite a properly worn helmet, or injuries to parts of the body a helmet does not protect, are not diminished by helmet arguments. Keeping the helmet question in its proper, narrow place, rather than allowing it to become a backdoor way to blame the rider for the whole crash, is an important part of answering the bias these claims so often face.
In most motorcycle crashes with another vehicle, the decisive question is what the other driver did, and keeping the focus there is central to the claim. Drivers owe motorcyclists the same duty of care they owe other motorists, including the duty to look for and yield to motorcycles. The frequent refrain that a driver "never saw the motorcycle" describes a breach of that duty, not an excuse for it. A driver who fails to see a motorcycle that was plainly there to be seen has not met their obligation, and the failure is the breach, not an excuse for it.
Establishing the other driver's conduct depends on the physical evidence: the point of impact, the vehicle damage, the positions after the crash, any available video, and witness accounts, all of which can show a left turn across the rider's path, a lane change into the motorcycle, or a failure to yield from a side street. This objective record both proves the other driver's fault and directly answers the assumption that the rider must have done something wrong to cause the crash. Centering the claim on the other driver's breach of duty is what overcomes the bias and establishes liability.
The evidence that establishes a motorcycle crash claim is abundant at the scene and gone within days, which makes prompt action valuable, especially given the need to counter the bias riders face. The physical scene, the point of impact, skid marks, the resting positions of the motorcycle and the other vehicle, and the debris field tell much of the story of who did what, and photographs and measurements taken promptly preserve it before the roadway is cleared.
Other evidence is equally perishable. Video from nearby businesses, traffic cameras, or other vehicles can capture the crash but is overwritten within weeks, and witnesses who saw the other driver turn or merge into the rider provide accounts that fade. The vehicle damage on both the motorcycle and the car can be analyzed to reconstruct the crash, but only if preserved. Because so much of this evidence both proves the claim and rebuts the assumption of rider fault, moving quickly to gather it is frequently what allows a fair reconstruction of a motorcycle crash.
The other driver's insurer approaches a motorcycle claim with the goal of paying as little as possible, and it often leans on the bias against riders to do so. It will commonly argue the rider was speeding, riding recklessly, or somehow responsible for being less visible, pressing comparative fault to reduce or defeat the claim, and it may dispute the severity of the injuries despite their obvious seriousness. It may also seek a recorded statement early or extend a quick offer.
What the insurer cannot do, in most cases, is hide behind the verbal threshold, because the rider is generally outside it, so it concentrates on fault and on minimizing the injuries. The answer to both is evidence: the objective record of the other driver's failure to yield or to see the rider, and thorough medical documentation of the injuries and their future course. Because a serious motorcycle injury can require lifelong care, an early offer can fall short, which is why evaluating any offer only after the injuries have stabilized protects the claim's value.
Because motorcyclists are so exposed, their crashes are disproportionately likely to be catastrophic or fatal, and these cases require particular care. A catastrophic injury, a traumatic brain injury, a spinal-cord injury causing paralysis, or the loss of a limb, carries lifelong consequences and costs that the claim must capture in full, projecting future medical care, lost earning capacity, and the cost of adapting to a permanent disability rather than merely tallying the medical bills incurred to date.
When a motorcycle crash takes a life, the loss moves into the framework of a wrongful death and survival claim. A wrongful death action must be filed within two years after the date of death (N.J.S.A. 2A:31-3), which can be later than the date of the crash.
A wrongful death claim, brought by the estate's representative for the surviving family, recovers the financial support and services the rider would have provided. In contrast, a survival claim recovers the losses the rider suffered before death.
The same urgency to preserve evidence and answer the bias applies, because liability must be established for the family's claim to succeed. Pursuing the full measure of such a loss is the focus in these gravest cases.
The single most common and most dangerous motorcycle crash with another vehicle is the left-turn collision, and it deserves particular attention because it so clearly illustrates the other driver's fault. In this crash, an oncoming driver turns left across the path of a motorcycle proceeding straight through an intersection, either misjudging the motorcycle's speed and distance or failing to see it at all. The rider, proceeding through with the right of way, typically has little time or room to brake or swerve clear of the turning vehicle.
These crashes are largely the turning driver's responsibility. Under N.J.S.A. 39:4-90, a driver turning left must yield to an oncoming vehicle that is in the intersection or so close as to constitute an immediate hazard, and New Jersey's model jury charge requires a left-turning driver to wait for a safe moment and use extra care for the added danger.
A traffic violation is usually evidence of negligence for the jury to weigh, while a violation of the careless-driving statute, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, is negligence in itself. The defense will often claim the motorcycle was speeding to explain why the driver "could not" complete the turn safely, which makes the objective evidence of the motorcycle's actual speed and the intersection geometry important. Establishing that the turning driver failed to yield as required by law is frequently the heart of a left-turn collision claim against that driver.
Beyond the left turn, a cluster of motorcycle crashes arises from a driver's failure to account for a motorcycle when changing lanes or merging. A motorcycle's narrow profile fits easily into a passenger car's blind spot, and a driver who changes lanes without a proper head check can move directly into a rider with little or no warning. On the high-speed Garden State Parkway and Route 22 traffic around Westfield, such a lane-change crash can be especially severe for an exposed rider.
The duty in these crashes is the driver's. Changing lanes safely requires checking for all traffic, including motorcycles, and a driver who merges into a motorcycle has failed that duty regardless of the rider's smaller profile. The recurring excuse that the driver "did not see" the motorcycle describes the breach rather than excusing it, because the motorcycle was there to be seen. Establishing that the other driver changed lanes or merged without yielding to a motorcycle in the lane is what proves fault in these crashes and answers any suggestion that the rider should have somehow made themselves more visible.
Not every motorcycle crash involves another vehicle. A motorcycle is far more vulnerable than a car to road hazards, a pothole, a patch of gravel, an uneven pavement seam, debris, or a poorly marked defect, that a car would pass over without consequence but that can unseat a rider and cause a serious crash. Where such a hazard caused a crash, the question becomes who was responsible for the road's condition.
If a pothole or other road defect caused the crash and a public entity maintained the road, the claim falls under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act. The rider must show a dangerous condition the entity created or had notice of, and that its failure to address it was palpably unreasonable (N.J.S.A. 59:4-2). Pain-and-suffering damages against a public entity are available only for a permanent loss of a bodily function, permanent disfigurement, or dismemberment where medical expenses exceed $3,600 (N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(d)), and punitive damages cannot be awarded against a public entity (N.J.S.A. 59:9-2(c)).
In other cases, a private party's negligence, such as a contractor who left debris or created a hazard, may be responsible. Determining the cause of a single-vehicle motorcycle crash, and who was responsible for the hazard, is essential both for identifying the right defendant and for meeting the correct notice requirements.
The damages available to an injured motorcyclist span both economic and non-economic losses, and because riders are generally outside the verbal threshold, the full range is available without a statutory hurdle.
Economic damages include medical bills, future treatment, and lost income and earning capacity, which, in a catastrophic case, can include lifelong care for a brain or spinal injury, or adaptation to a permanent disability, and can be substantial. These future costs often dwarf the medical bills already incurred by the time a claim is resolved, which is why projecting them carefully matters.
Non-economic damages compensate for the pain, the disability, the permanent scarring that severe road rash can cause, and the loss of life's enjoyment, and a rider may pursue them without proving the injury fits one of the six categories that bind car occupants. Where the other driver acted with actual malice or wanton and willful disregard of others, such as a drunk driver who struck a rider, punitive damages may be available if proved by clear and convincing evidence (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.12).
These awards are usually capped at five times the compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14(b)). Still, the cap does not apply when the driver has been convicted of drunk driving under R.S. 39:4-50 or of refusing a breath test under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.14(c)). Capturing the full, long-term scope of a rider's losses is essential to valuing the claim fairly.
A serious motorcycle injury can easily exceed the coverage carried by an at-fault driver, particularly one with only minimum liability limits, which makes the rider's own coverage an important part of the picture. Underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage in New Jersey applies only when the at-fault driver's total liability limits are lower than the UIM limits on the injured rider's own policy (N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.1(e)(1)).
When it applies, the UIM limit is reduced by the amount recovered from the at-fault driver's liability insurance, so UIM fills the gap between the two limits. Uninsured motorist coverage responds when the at-fault driver has no insurance or cannot be identified, as in a hit-and-run.
These coverages matter especially for motorcyclists because their injuries tend to be severe and costly. A rider who carried meaningful uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage has a critical source of recovery when the at-fault driver's policy falls short, and identifying and pursuing that coverage is part of addressing the full extent of the harm.
Reviewing every available policy, including the at-fault driver's, the rider's own underinsured and uninsured coverage, and any others, early in the case ensures that a catastrophic injury can be fully addressed rather than capped by one inadequate policy.
The steps taken after a motorcycle crash protect both health and the claim, though severe injuries often make this impossible for the rider at the scene. The overriding priority is medical care, which both treats the rider's injuries and documents their connection to the crash. Ensuring the police respond and document the scene creates an official account, and getting the other driver's information is important.
Where someone is able, photographing the scene, the vehicles, and the road conditions, and collecting the names of witnesses who saw how the crash happened, preserves the evidence that both proves fault and answers the assumption of rider recklessness. Being cautious about recorded statements and early settlement offers from the other driver's insurer protects the claim, as does preserving the motorcycle and gear rather than discarding them, since they can be evidence. Because the evidence fades quickly and the bias must be met with facts, acting promptly is what protects a motorcycle claim.
New Jersey's no-fault rules and the law governing motorcycle claims apply statewide. Still, when a crash occurs on a specific road, and a contested claim is heard in a specific court, familiarity with both adds value. Knowing where riders face risk around Westfield, including high-speed merging on the Garden State Parkway at Exits 135 and 137 and on US Route 22, and the intersection and turning conflicts along Route 28 and the downtown grid, helps in understanding how a particular crash happened and in countering an attempt to blame the rider.
It extends as well to the institutions a serious case runs through: University Hospital in Newark, the regional Level I trauma center, and Overlook Medical Center in Summit for treatment, and the Union County Courthouse in Elizabeth, where a contested matter is heard in the Union Vicinage. Pairing command of New Jersey's no-fault law, including the rider's freedom from the verbal threshold, with attention to the specific facts of a Westfield motorcycle crash is what allows the claim to be handled on its full merits.
A motorcycle claim faces two pressures that together reward acting early: perishable evidence and persistent bias. The evidence that both establishes the other driver's fault and rebuts the assumption of rider recklessness (the scene, the video, the witness accounts, and the vehicle damage) fades within days or weeks. At the same time, the tendency to blame the rider means a claim left undeveloped is especially vulnerable to an insurer's one-sided version of events.
Acting promptly answers both pressures. A prompt investigation captures the scene, the video, and the witnesses before they are gone, building the objective record that proves the other driver failed to yield or to see the motorcycle. That record is what overcomes the bias rather than leaving it unchallenged.
The deadline to file suit is generally two years from the crash under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. If the injured rider or passenger was under 18, the two years usually begins on their 18th birthday (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21). A claim against a public entity also requires a written notice of claim within 90 days (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8). A judge may allow a late notice within one year if there were extraordinary circumstances and the entity was not substantially prejudiced (N.J.S.A. 59:8-9).
Suit can be filed six months after the entity receives the notice, and no later than two years after the claim arose. The evidence that wins a motorcycle case can disappear long before these deadlines, which is why these claims reward early attention more than most.
Some of the most serious motorcycle crashes involve more than one other vehicle, and these multi-vehicle events raise their own questions of responsibility. A rider may be caught in a chain-reaction crash on a high-speed road like the Parkway or Route 22, struck by one vehicle and then another, or forced down by a vehicle that itself was reacting to a third, and sorting out which driver did what becomes central to the claim.
New Jersey's allocation rule, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3, divides fault among the responsible parties: a defendant found 60 percent or more responsible can be made to pay the full award. In contrast, a defendant found less than 60 percent responsible pays only their own percentage share. This matters when a catastrophic injury could exceed a single driver's coverage.
Identifying every vehicle and driver involved, reconstructing the precise sequence of impacts, and locating every applicable insurance policy are all part of building a multi-vehicle motorcycle claim. Because a rider in such a crash is so often severely hurt, reaching every responsible party and every layer of coverage can be what allows the full extent of the harm to be addressed.
Usually not. Motorcycles are not automobiles required to carry no-fault PIP, so riders are generally free to pursue pain-and-suffering damages without meeting one of the six categories.
Most often the other driver, by failing to see or yield to the rider, turning across their path, or merging into them. The smaller profile of a motorcycle is frequently a factor.
With objective evidence of how the crash happened, including the other driver's failure to yield or to see the motorcycle. That evidence answers the bias riders face.
Often severe, because a rider has little protection. Head, spinal, orthopedic, and road-rash injuries are common, and they can be life-altering.
Generally, two years from the crash under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. If the injured rider or passenger was under 18, the two years usually begins on their 18th birthday (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-21). Acting sooner helps preserve the evidence that establishes fault.
A first conversation about the crash costs nothing, and because the evidence that establishes fault and answers any bias fades quickly, there is little reason to wait. You can contact the firm to talk through what happened and how the rules above apply to your situation.
The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. represents riders injured throughout Westfield and Union County, with staff who speak Spanish, Russian, and other languages spoken across the community. Attorney Sander Budanitsky has represented injured New Jersey clients since 1996 and is admitted in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Call us today at 908-241-3445 today and start your legal journey towards recovery.
Last reviewed: June 2026. This page was reviewed by Sander Budanitsky, licensed in New Jersey since 1996. It is provided for general information and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed New Jersey attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. welcomes calls from potential clients and from attorneys looking to refer or co-counsel a matter. Whether it is an injury claim, a civil dispute, a criminal charge, or an immigration question, the first conversation is free and there is no obligation to hire the firm afterward.
Call the Roselle, New Jersey office at (908) 241-3445 or the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office at (215) 545-2300. You can also send the details through the contact form and someone from the office will get back to you. Calls are answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
