A driver may swerve around a pothole and enter a motorcyclist’s lane. The pothole explains a possible trigger; it does not answer whether the lane movement was safe or whether the rider’s conduct contributed to the collision. Reconstruct the sequence before accepting a broad “shared fault” label.

Record the positions and sequence

  • Where were the pothole, car and motorcycle before the driver moved? Mark the lane and travel direction on a simple sketch, and label estimates as estimates.
  • What shows the timing of the swerve: a witness account, lawful existing photo or video, crash report, damage location or roadway marking? Record who made each observation.
  • What exactly is alleged about the rider: speed, lane position, following distance or response? Ask what evidence supports that specific claim rather than assuming fault from the rider’s proximity.

North Carolina G.S. 20-154 requires a driver to see that a movement from a direct line can be made safely and to signal when another vehicle may be affected. The statute also says its violation is not negligence per se. The fact that a pothole existed does not itself decide whether either road user met the applicable duty.

Treat a rider-fault allegation as a legal question

North Carolina does not use a routine percentage subtraction for contributory negligence. Under G.S. 1-139, the party asserting that defense bears the burden of proof. The outcome still depends on the conduct, causal connection and evidence in the individual case; this article cannot decide it. The motorcycle contributory-negligence evidence guide explains the broader burden and records review.

Use photos or video already taken from a safe, lawful place. Do not return to a live lane or shoulder to measure a pothole or reproduce a swerve; road authorities and qualified investigators can address technical measurements. A motorcycle accident lawyer reviewing a disputed swerve can compare the specific allegation with the available accounts and records.