Experience & Selected Case Results
how we help riders and their families
The matters below represent a small selection of cases involving serious motorcycle and vulnerable road user injuries and wrongful death claims. Each case is unique, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
We share these examples to provide context for the kind of work we do and the way we approach difficult cases—particularly when riders or their families are blamed, evidence is disputed, or insurers urge early resolution without full accountability.
Bicycle Wrongful Death – Dane County, Wisconsin
Vulnerable road user fatality | Co‑counsel representation
We helped Clay with a wrongful death case involving a young professional who commuted to work by bicycle in Dane County, just outside Madison.
The collision occurred while the cyclist was traveling on a designated bike trail. The driver denied responsibility and asserted that the cyclist was somehow at fault.
Through investigation and expert analysis, the evidence showed that the driver was traveling well above the posted speed limit and failed to see or react to a lawful cyclist using the trail. Despite continued denial by the defense, the case proceeded to trial.
The jury returned a verdict of $15,136,506.48, holding the driver accountable for the fatal collision. The verdict is believed to be one of the largest jury verdicts in Wisconsin history involving someone on two wheels.
This case reflects the importance of careful investigation, expert testimony, and a willingness to try difficult cases when responsibility is disputed.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
👉 Related: Madison Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
👉 Related: Motorcycle & Rider Wrongful Death Cases
Motorcycle Wrongful Death – Monterey County, California
Motorcycle fatality | Early‑career representation
Early in his career, John McCarthy represented the family of a father who was killed while riding his motorcycle northbound on Highway 101 near Soledad, California.
The collision occurred on a bridge when another driver intruded into the motorcyclist’s lane, forcing him off the roadway. The motorcycle struck a concrete barrier, and the rider later died from his injuries.
The defense denied responsibility and advanced common rider‑blame arguments, including claims that the motorcyclist was speeding or riding erratically. The family consulted with other attorneys and were advised to accept the available policy limits.
After further investigation and consultation with a motorcycle accident‑reconstruction expert, the evidence supported that the rider was maintaining proper lane position and riding predictably, and that the collision was caused by the driver’s lane intrusion rather than any action by the motorcyclist.
The defense sought summary judgment, arguing that liability could not be established. That motion was defeated, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.
The matter ultimately resolved through a confidential settlement exceeding policy limits, providing meaningful support to the rider’s surviving family.
This case reflects the importance of independent judgment, expert analysis, and the willingness to litigate when rider‑blame narratives are not supported by the evidence.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
👉 Related: Motorcycle Accident Injuries
👉 Related: McCarthy Motorcycle Law
What These Cases Illustrate
While each case is different, the matters above share common elements:
Serious motorcycle or vulnerable road user injuries
Disputed liability and attempts to shift blame onto the rider
The need for expert analysis and careful investigation
Resistance to premature settlement when accountability is unresolved
Willingness to proceed toward trial when necessary
We do not take every case, and we do not promise outcomes. When we accept a matter, it is because we believe the evidence justifies disciplined advocacy and full accountability.
Client Perspective
“You’re honest and hardworking. You fought for me when others told me to settle.” — David
Additional references may be available upon request, consistent with confidentiality and ethical obligations.