On Aug. 15, 2010, at around 2 p.m., plaintiff Todd Neikirk, a typesetter in his 50s who worked for a printing company, was riding a motorcycle onto an on-ramp for Interstate 210 in the city of Monrovia when he was involved in a single vehicle accident. Neikirk filed a suit against the city of Monrovia and the people of the state of California, by and through the Department of Transportation, for an alleged dangerous condition of public property. The city was dismissed early on because it was determined that it did not have ownership, maintenance or control of the property where the accident occurred. Thus, the matter proceeded against the people of California only. Neikirk alleged that he hit a pothole with his motorcycle on the on-ramp, which then caused his motorcycle to go up onto the adjacent raised curb. He claimed that as a result, he was ejected from the motorcycle and struck a pole. Neikirk claimed that Caltrans was negligent because it should have known about the pothole and repaired it prior to the accident. The people of the state of California, by and through its Department of Transportation, alleged that there was no dangerous condition as a matter of law. The defense’s accident reconstruction expert presented evidence that showed a 9-inch wide and 1.75-inch deep pothole located on the far left side of a lane, which the expert opined was not a danger to a motorcyclist using due care. Thus, defense counsel argued that the pothole was unlikely to have caused Neikirk’s accident. According to defense counsel, evidence presented by both sides had Neikirk giving differing recollections of how the accident occurred., Neikirk was ejected from his motorcycle and struck a pole. He was subsequently taken to a hospital, where he was diagnosed with fractures of the right femur and right hip. He also suffered a cervical level fracture. Neikirk claimed that although he treated his with physical therapy for a few months, he is still in constant pain and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life. Neikirk also claimed that his prevent him from participating in recreational activities that he previously enjoyed, such as hiking and fishing, and that he suffered a loss of some wages as a result of the incident.
