Los Angeles residents pay taxes to help keep the city's roads and streets safe for travel. Despite this, the city frequently fails to repair potholes in a timely manner, creating a serious hazard for motorcyclists. Riders injured this way often assume they have no way to recover their losses. In many cases, however, an injured motorcyclist may be entitled to file a claim against the city and pursue compensation for a motorcycle pothole accident in Los Angeles. Understanding the city's duty to maintain its roads, the laws that govern pothole accident claims, and the steps to take after a serious injury can make a significant difference in the outcome of a claim.
The City of Los Angeles is required to inspect its streets regularly and repair potholes promptly. In practice, however, the city does not always meet this obligation, and the consequences can be more than a mere inconvenience. While hitting a pothole in a car usually causes only minor property damage, the same hazard can be far more dangerous for a motorcyclist. Striking a pothole while riding can lead to catastrophic injuries or even death. Some potholes are easy to spot and avoid, but others are difficult to see until it's too late, particularly during low-light hours. A deep pothole can trap a motorcycle's tire, causing the rider to lose control and suffer severe injuries.
Under California's premises liability law, public entities such as the City of Los Angeles can be held responsible for their employees' negligence in maintaining public streets. Like private property owners, government bodies that own public property have a legal duty to keep those properties in a reasonably safe condition and to prevent foreseeable injuries caused by hazards. That duty includes conducting regular inspections to identify and correct dangerous conditions, including potholes.
The legal standard applied to property owners was established by the California Supreme Court in Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), which did away with the common law's distinction in the duty owed to visitors based on their status. As a result, every property owner in California now has a duty to keep their property reasonably safe, regardless of why a visitor is there.
When a pothole has existed long enough that the city knew, or reasonably should have known, about it and failed to repair it or warn motorists of the danger, an injured motorcyclist may have a valid claim against the city.
Under California Government Code 835, public entities such as the City of Los Angeles are liable for "dangerous conditions of public property." To establish liability, a plaintiff must show:
When a motorcycle accident is caused by a pothole, the injured rider becomes the plaintiff in a claim against the city. To prevail, the plaintiff must prove each required element by a preponderance of the evidence. These elements include the location of the property, the likelihood that another person would encounter the hazard in a similar way, the seriousness of the potential harm, whether the city knew or should have known about the dangerous condition, the difficulty of protecting the public from the hazard, and the degree of control the city had over the condition. Failing to provide sufficient evidence on any one of these elements can defeat the claim, even if the others are well supported.
Proving that the city knew or should have known about an unrepaired pothole can be one of the more difficult elements to establish. Potholes can appear suddenly, and with Los Angeles maintaining such an extensive network of streets, it isn't always easy to pinpoint when a particular pothole formed. Certain types of evidence, however, can help establish this element, including prior complaints about the pothole, witness statements, video footage, road inspection logs, and maintenance schedules. If the plaintiff can show that the pothole existed long enough that the city should reasonably have discovered and repaired it, that may be enough to satisfy this element.
A motorcyclist injured by an unrepaired pothole on a public street has the right to pursue a claim against the city for the hazardous condition. The process begins with filing a tort claim with the relevant municipality within six months of the accident. This claim is not itself a lawsuit — it preserves the right to file a civil complaint in court later. Under California's statute of limitations, an injured rider has two years from the date of the accident to file that lawsuit.
The six-month deadline comes from the California Tort Claims Act, which requires notifying the responsible government agency of the claim. While the city may accept a claim, it is more likely to deny it without explanation. If the claim is denied, the injured rider can then file a lawsuit against the city within two years of the accident.
Municipalities and government agencies typically mount a vigorous defense against these lawsuits, which makes it important to work with an experienced personal injury attorney. The attorney will file the lawsuit, investigate the case, gather evidence, and conduct discovery.
To prevail in a lawsuit against a city or government agency, the plaintiff must obtain records of past repairs, inspections, and complaints related to the site of the accident, and prove the following:
A motorcyclist injured by a pothole should seek immediate medical attention by calling 911 for an ambulance and the police. Photos of the pothole — taken with a phone and including a nearby object for a sense of scale — can be valuable evidence. If the rider's injuries make this impossible, someone else should take the photos as soon as possible. This documentation will be critical to building a legal case against the city.
When police arrive, the rider should explain what happened and request an accident report, along with instructions for obtaining a copy once it becomes available. That report should be picked up after receiving medical treatment.
Healthcare providers should be told that the injuries resulted from hitting a pothole while riding a motorcycle. This helps them evaluate the injuries with that context in mind and connect them directly to the accident, and it shows that the injuries were not caused by something unrelated to the dangerous pothole.
