Plainfield riders know the risks firsthand. Between the stop-and-go traffic on Front Street and Park Avenue and fast-moving cars along Route 22 and I-287, a motorcycle has little margin for error when a driver doesn't look twice.
A motorcycle offers none of the protection of a car, so when a crash happens, the rider almost always bears the worst injuries. The injuries, such as fractures, road rash, and head trauma, can mean huge expenses and months away from work.
The Law Offices of Sander Budanitsky, L.L.C. represents injured riders across Plainfield and Union County, helping them pursue compensation for medical bills and lost income, and other coverage available under New Jersey law. Call (908) 241-3445 or (908) 241-4595 to schedule a free consultation.
New Jersey's verbal threshold restricts a car driver's right to recover pain-and-suffering damages, limiting it to injuries that fit one of six statutory categories under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8. That restriction is tied to the no-fault automobile coverage drivers are required to carry, and a motorcycle is not an automobile under the no-fault scheme. As a result, a motorcyclist is generally not subject to the verbal threshold at all.
This is a meaningful advantage. A car driver with the same injuries might have to prove a permanent injury or a displaced fracture to recover for pain and suffering, while a rider generally need not clear that hurdle and can pursue the full range of noneconomic damages based on the injuries the crash caused.
Confirming the rider's own policy facts matters in any given case, but the general rule that motorcyclists stand outside the threshold is usually an important point in evaluating a claim, because it can mean the difference between a limited recovery and a full one.
A motorcyclist's recovery is governed by the same comparative-negligence rule as other claims, the 51 percent bar at N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1. A rider recovers as long as their share of fault is not greater than the other parties' combined fault, meaning fifty percent or less, with the recovery reduced by that share. At fifty-one percent, recovery is barred.
Riders face a persistent and unfair bias, the assumption that a motorcyclist must have been speeding or riding recklessly, and the defense often leans on that assumption to shift fault onto the rider. Even a rider found partly at fault still recovers as long as their share does not exceed fifty percent.
Objective evidence, the physical evidence, the witness accounts, and the reconstruction can show what actually happened. Answering rider bias with objective proof, rather than letting the assumption stand, is central to protecting the value of a motorcycle claim.
Many motorcycle crashes follow a familiar pattern: a driver who fails to see a motorcycle and turns across its path, pulls out from a side street, or changes lanes into it.
The corridors around Plainfield present several settings for these conflicts, from the US 22 jughandles and merges accessed through North Plainfield to the turning movements along Route 28 and Park Avenue in the city.
The left-turn collision, in which a driver turns left across an oncoming motorcycle that the driver claims not to have seen, is among the most common and most serious. Drivers frequently misjudge a motorcycle's speed and distance or simply fail to look for one. On corridors that mix fast-moving traffic with frequent turns and merges, these conflicts multiply.
Precisely how a particular crash happened and which driver failed in their duty of care is the foundation of establishing the rider's claim.
Consider a rider traveling the US 22 corridor, reached through North Plainfield, struck by a driver turning at a jughandle or merging without looking. The driver may claim the rider was speeding or came out of nowhere, the familiar attempt to shift blame onto the motorcyclist.
Answering the driver's version depends on objective evidence: the point of impact, the damage to the vehicle and motorcycle, the roadway evidence, any video, and independent witnesses who saw the driver turn or merge into the rider's path.
Because the rider is often seriously injured and unable to gather this proof, and because it is perishable, a prompt investigation on the rider's behalf is what allows a fair reconstruction. The dynamics of the corridor are local, and so is the evidence that ultimately resolves a disputed motorcycle crash.
New Jersey requires every motorcycle rider and passenger to wear a helmet (N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7), and a rider who was wearing one removes a line of argument the defense might otherwise raise.
The helmet has no bearing on who caused the crash, but its presence forecloses any contention that a head injury was made worse by the failure to wear required protection. For a rider, complying with the helmet law simply takes that issue off the table.
Other protective gear, such as a jacket, gloves, or boots, is not legally required, and its absence does not establish fault for the crash or automatically reduce a recovery. A driver who turned left into a rider's path caused the crash, regardless of what the rider was wearing.
When a defense argues that the lack of certain gear increased a particular injury, that argument is narrow and must be supported by evidence to the specific harm, leaving the central question of who caused the collision unchanged.
A point of frequent confusion is whether a motorcycle may move between lanes of traffic. New Jersey requires every vehicle, motorcycles included, to stay as nearly as practicable within a single lane (N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b)), so riding between lanes of traffic is not permitted.
A rider who was lane splitting at the time of a crash may face an argument that their own conduct contributed to it. That a rider was lane-splitting does not, by itself, end a claim.
New Jersey's comparative-fault system still allows recovery as long as the rider's share of fault does not exceed fifty percent, and a driver who changed lanes without signaling or checking a mirror may bear the greater share even where the rider was between lanes.
The analysis weighs the conduct of both parties, and sorting out the lane positions and movements is central to establishing who was primarily at fault.
A motorcycle offers none of the structural protection of a car, which is why crashes involving riders so often produce catastrophic injuries. A rider struck by a turning or merging vehicle absorbs the force of the impact directly, with no enclosing frame, no airbags, and no seatbelt, and even a moderate-speed collision can cause life-altering harm. This basic vulnerability shapes both the injuries and the way these cases must be handled.
The injuries reflect this exposure. Riders frequently suffer traumatic brain injuries despite wearing a helmet, along with spinal-cord damage, multiple fractures, internal injuries, and severe road-rash wounds that can require skin grafts.
Plainfield residents can get emergency care at the JFK Muhlenberg Satellite Emergency Department on Randolph Road, but patients who need admission are transferred. Because Union County has no designated trauma center, seriously injured riders are typically taken to a Level I center such as University Hospital in Newark.
The severity of the typical motorcycle injury is one reason these claims must account for far more than the initial hospital stay.
A catastrophic injury can require multiple surgeries, months of rehabilitation, and ongoing therapy, and some injuries leave permanent impairment that affects a rider's ability to work and to live as before. Valuing the claim accurately means projecting future costs, not settling based on the bills received so far.
The lost earning capacity of a seriously injured rider can be substantial, particularly when the injury prevents a return to physically demanding work, and when the costs of adaptive equipment and the value of lost independence are included in the analysis.
The full measure of these long-term consequences can be recovered without a threshold fight, which makes thorough documentation of the lasting impact all the more important for a fair recovery.
A sobering reality of serious motorcycle crashes is that the at-fault driver's insurance is frequently inadequate to the cost of a catastrophic injury, which makes a careful review of every available coverage source essential.
The at-fault driver's liability policy is the first place to look, but New Jersey's minimum limits can be a small fraction of what a severe injury actually costs. When that coverage falls short, a rider's own uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage is often the key, responding when the at-fault driver has too little insurance or none at all.
Because a motorcyclist is neither occupying an 'automobile' nor a 'pedestrian' under New Jersey's no-fault law, the rider generally cannot collect PIP medical benefits from the car that hit them, which is why the rider's own health insurance and any medical coverage on the motorcycle policy matter.
Mapping all of these sources early, the at-fault driver's liability policy, the rider's own UM and UIM coverage, and any other applicable policy, is one of the most valuable steps in a serious motorcycle claim, since a catastrophic injury can easily exceed a single minimum policy.
A crash between a motorcycle and a larger vehicle is especially dangerous, and a rider struck by a truck or other heavy vehicle faces both more severe injuries and a more complex set of defendants.
The difference in mass means the rider bears the full force of the impact, and the involvement of a commercial vehicle brings additional rules and potential parties, such as a trucking company, into the case. These crashes require an investigation that accounts for the larger vehicle's records, its data, and the company behind it, in addition to the driver's conduct.
The corridors where heavy vehicles and motorcycles share the road around Plainfield, from the US 22 corridor to the routes feeding the interstates, are where these conflicts occur. It is especially important to identify all responsible parties and applicable policies when a larger vehicle is involved, because the resulting injuries and costs are typically more substantial.
Because riders face the persistent assumption that they must have been at fault, a prompt and thorough investigation of the physical evidence is what answers it.
In the first days after a crash, the motorcycle should be preserved and photographed before it is repaired or scrapped, the scene should be documented before skid marks and debris are cleared, and any footage from nearby businesses or traffic cameras should be requested before it is overwritten. Each of these is perishable, and each can be decisive.
Independent witnesses are especially valuable in motorcycle cases. Someone who saw the driver turn across the rider's path, or who can confirm the rider was traveling at a reasonable speed in the proper lane, directly rebuts the reflexive narrative that the rider was at fault.
Fresh witness accounts and timely preservation of objective physical evidence are essential to a fair reconstruction of the crash. Because a seriously injured rider is rarely able to handle this work personally, prompt action on the rider’s behalf can determine whether the true circumstances of the crash can be established.
When a motorcycle carries a passenger, or when riders travel together in a group, a crash raises considerations a solo rider's claim does not. An injured passenger on a motorcycle is almost never at fault for the crash, which puts them in a strong position to recover.
They may have claims against the at-fault driver, against the motorcycle operator if the operator's riding contributed, or against both. Identifying every responsible party and the coverage available from each is the starting point for a passenger's claim.
Group rides add their own complications. A crash within a group can involve questions about the spacing, positioning, and conduct of multiple riders, and a collision caused by one vehicle can injure several riders at once, raising the same limited-coverage concerns that arise whenever multiple people are hurt in a single crash.
Where available insurance may not be enough to fully compensate everyone, the order in which claims are made and the sources of coverage identified can matter. Sorting out fault and coverage in a multi-rider crash benefits from prompt, careful investigation.
Because the bias against riders usually surfaces as an argument about shared fault, it helps to see how New Jersey's comparative-fault rule actually works in a motorcycle case. Suppose a rider is injured when a driver turns left across their path, but the defense contends the rider was traveling somewhat over the speed limit.
If a jury were to assign the driver seventy percent of the fault and the rider thirty percent, the rider still recovers, with the award reduced by their thirty percent share. A rider found thirty percent at fault on a hundred-thousand-dollar award would recover seventy thousand dollars.
The rule bars recovery only when the rider's share exceeds fifty percent, so the practical contest in many motorcycle cases is over the allocation of fault rather than whether any recovery is possible at all. This is precisely why objective evidence matters so much: a reconstruction showing the driver failed to yield, or witness accounts confirming the rider was riding lawfully, can decisively move the allocation.
The defense has every incentive to inflate the rider's share, and answering that effort with solid proof is what protects the value of the claim.
Motorcycles are far more vulnerable than cars to road hazards, and a poorly maintained surface, an unmarked pothole, loose gravel, an uneven pavement seam, or debris in the roadway can cause a rider to lose control where a car would pass over the same hazard unaffected.
Where a dangerous road condition caused or contributed to a crash, the responsible party may be a public entity that maintained the road, which brings the Tort Claims Act and its ninety-day notice requirement into play.
A public entity is liable for a dangerous road condition only if it created the condition or had notice of it, and its failure to fix it was palpably unreasonable, a higher bar than ordinary negligence.
Claims against a public entity follow different rules for damages. Pain and suffering is recoverable only for permanent loss of bodily function, permanent disfigurement, or dismemberment where medical expenses exceed $3,600, and punitive damages are not available against a public entity.
A defective motorcycle part, such as a failed brake or tire, may point instead to a product-liability claim against the manufacturer.
These cases require prompt investigation because evidence of a road hazard or part failure can disappear quickly. A shorter deadline for claims against a public entity may also expire before a rider realizes that a government defendant may bear responsibility.
The actions a rider takes after a crash can protect both their health and their claim, even when serious injuries make that difficult. Having the police respond and document the scene creates an official record, while prompt medical care both treats the injuries and connects them to the crash. Where the rider is able, photographs of the scene, the vehicles, and the motorcycle capture detail that fades quickly.
In the days that follow, preserving the motorcycle in its post-crash condition, identifying any witnesses, and being cautious about recorded statements to the at-fault driver's insurer all help protect the claim.
A rider should be wary of early settlement offers, which commonly arrive before the full extent of the injuries is understood. Because motorcycle injuries can be severe and their long-term consequences slow to emerge, taking these steps, or having someone take them on the rider's behalf, preserves the evidence and the value of the claim.
A defective brake, a failed tire, a steering or suspension component that gives way, or another manufacturing or design defect can cause a rider to lose control, and when that happens, a product-liability claim against the manufacturer or seller may arise under New Jersey's Products Liability Act.
Under New Jersey's Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-2, the question is whether the product was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose because of a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or an inadequate warning.
These claims focus on whether the product was defective and unreasonably dangerous rather than on ordinary negligence, and they often involve substantial corporate defendants with significant insurance. Preserving the motorcycle and the failed component is essential because the defective part is the central evidence and is easily lost once the wreck is repaired or scrapped.
A pattern in motorcycle crashes is the driver who says they simply did not see the rider, and understanding why this happens helps establish the driver's fault rather than excuse it.
A motorcycle presents a smaller visual profile than a car, and drivers conditioned to look for cars can fail to register a motorcycle even when it is plainly visible, a failure of attention rather than a true impossibility. Drivers also frequently misjudge a motorcycle's speed and distance when deciding whether to turn or pull out.
None of this relieves the driver of the duty to look carefully and to yield. A driver is required to maintain a proper lookout for all traffic, including motorcycles, and the failure to see a rider who was there to be seen is itself a form of negligence.
New Jersey law requires a driver turning left to yield to oncoming traffic that is in the intersection or close enough to be an immediate hazard (N.J.S.A. 39:4-90), and a motorcycle is oncoming traffic like any other vehicle.
Establishing that the driver failed in this duty, rather than accepting the claim that the rider was somehow at fault for being less visible, is often central to a motorcycle case.
Although New Jersey's motorcycle law is statewide, the practical details of a crash are local, and familiarity with the roads where riders are hurt adds real value.
The corridors around Plainfield, the US 22 jughandles and merges, the turning movements along Route 28 and Park Avenue, and the connectors toward the interstates each present conditions where drivers fail to see motorcycles, and knowing these patterns helps reconstruct a crash and anticipate the defense.
Local knowledge also extends to the courts and the receiving hospitals, since a serious motorcycle injury is treated at the regional trauma center and a contested claim is heard in the county's Superior Court.
A Plainfield case is usually heard in the Superior Court in Elizabeth (Union Vicinage), but a crash just over the line, such as on US 22 in North Plainfield, may instead be venued in Somerset County or in the county where a party lives.
Effective representation of an injured motorcyclist requires both knowledge of statewide rules that favor riders and careful attention to the specific facts of the local crash.
After a motorcycle crash, the at-fault driver's insurer works to limit what it pays, and its tactics in such cases often rely on rider bias.
A common approach is to argue that the rider was speeding, weaving, or riding recklessly, since shifting fault onto the rider directly reduces what the insurer must pay under the comparative-negligence rule. The insurer may also dispute the severity of the injuries or extend an early settlement offer before the full extent of a serious injury is known.
Recognizing these tactics is the first defense against them. The assumption that a rider was at fault is answered by the objective evidence, the reconstruction, the physical proof, and the witness accounts that show what actually happened.
An early settlement offer is best evaluated only after the full scope of a catastrophic injury, including its long-term cost, is understood, since accepting it prematurely can foreclose recovery for harm that becomes clear later.
The injuries a rider suffers reflect the lack of protection a motorcycle provides, and they tend toward the severe end of the spectrum.
Traumatic brain injuries can occur even with a helmet, and riders frequently suffer spinal-cord damage, multiple fractures of the legs, arms, and pelvis, serious internal injuries, and the extensive road-rash wounds that can require skin grafts and leave permanent scarring. Many of these injuries carry lifelong consequences.
Because the injuries are so often catastrophic, a motorcycle claim must account for the full course of treatment and recovery, including future surgeries, rehabilitation, and any permanent impairment that affects the rider's ability to work and live independently. Thorough documentation of the complete medical picture is necessary to a fair recovery.
Generally yes. A motorcyclist isn't subject to the verbal threshold, which applies to people bound by a limitation-on-lawsuit option on an automobile policy. Fault, available insurance, and the rider's other coverage still affect the outcome.
Riders face an unfair assumption of recklessness, but the objective evidence answers it. The physical evidence and witness accounts establish what actually happened.
You can still recover as long as your share of fault is not more than fifty percent. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault.
New Jersey requires a helmet, and wearing one removes an argument. The absence of optional gear does not establish fault for the crash.
Two years from the crash under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. If the injured person is under 18, the two-year period generally does not begin until their 18th birthday.
If a public entity or public employee may be responsible, such as a government vehicle or a dangerous road condition, a written notice of claim must be filed within 90 days. A judge may allow late notice within one year in extraordinary circumstances, and the lawsuit itself must still be filed within two years.
If a rider is killed, the family's wrongful death claim must generally be filed within two years of the date of death.
A first consultation about the crash costs nothing, and because the evidence that answers rider bias is perishable and the two-year deadline is running, there is little reason to wait. You can contact our 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 injured riders throughout Plainfield and Union County, with staff who speak Spanish, Russian, and other languages spoken across the city. Attorney Sander Budanitsky has represented injured New Jersey clients since 1996 and is admitted in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Last reviewed: October 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.
