Bicycle Dooring Accidents in Georgia

Published Read 6 min read

On this page

A cyclist riding beside a row of parked cars has a fraction of a second to react when a door swings into the lane, and the choices are to strike the door or veer left into moving traffic. Georgia answers the first legal question, who owed a duty before the door opened, in one sentence of statute, OCGA 40-6-243, and its bicycle rules expressly treat potentially opening car doors as a hazard a cyclist may ride away from.

The Door Statute

OCGA 40-6-243 provides: “No person shall open the door of a motor vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.” The duty is stated for “any person” who opens a door, so its text is not limited to the driver, and a passenger who opens a door on the traffic side is within the words of the statute. The statute does not define “moving traffic.” The chapter’s vehicle provisions that are not limited to motor vehicles apply to bicycles (OCGA 40-6-291(a)), and Hite v. Anderson, 284 Ga. App. 156 (2007), notes that a bicycle is a vehicle subject to the traffic rules that apply to any other operator of a vehicle.

Negligence Per Se and Its Limits

Hite arose from a collision between a driver turning left and a cyclist, and it explains what a statutory violation does and does not establish. Where a driver “simply pays a fine after pleading not guilty on a citation, pleads nolo contendere, or is adjudicated guilty by a traffic court after pleading not guilty, such payment does not constitute an explicit voluntary admission of guilt which will establish negligence per se.” Even when negligence per se is shown, the court said, “[n]egligence per se is not liability per se” (quoting Humphreys v. Kipfmiller, 237 Ga. App. 572 (1999)). The defendant “bears the burden of showing ‘that the violation was unintentional and in the exercise of ordinary care'” (quoting Roberts v. Ledbetter, 218 Ga. App. 860 (1995)), and “even when negligence per se is shown, the plaintiff must still prove proximate cause and actual damage in order to recover[,] … [a]nd it is generally a jury question as to whether or not such negligence proximately caused the injury” (quoting Duncan v. Randolph, 236 Ga. App. 566 (1999)). Applied to a door opened into a bicycle’s path, those principles leave the plaintiff to prove that the door was opened when it was not reasonably safe to do so, that the opening caused the collision, and that the collision caused the injuries.

The Cyclist’s Position on the Road

OCGA 40-6-294(b) directs a person operating a bicycle upon a roadway to “ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable,” except when, among other things, “[a]voiding hazards to safe cycling.” The statute defines that term: “‘hazards to safe cycling’ includes, but shall not be limited to, surface debris, rough pavement, drain grates which are parallel to the side of the roadway, parked or stopped vehicles, potentially opening car doors, or any other objects which threaten the safety of a person operating a bicycle” (OCGA 40-6-294(a)). A cyclist who rides away from the right side must “exercise reasonable care” and “give due consideration to the other applicable rules of the road.”

The cyclist’s duty of care continues regardless of position. In Hite, the court held that a cyclist who may have had the right of way still owed ordinary care in the circumstances, including a duty to keep a lookout, and that whether the cyclist was negligent in failing to observe the turning car was a question for the jury.

Unlike the helmet rule and the child-passenger rules, which state that a violation is not negligence per se, contributory negligence per se, or evidence of negligence or liability (OCGA 40-6-296(d)(5); OCGA 40-6-292(e)), OCGA 40-6-294 contains no such statement.

Shared Fault and a Second Collision

A cyclist who swerves left after a door opens may be struck by a passing vehicle. Fault is measured across everyone who helped cause the injury, whether or not a party; the award is divided among those liable by their percentages, with no joint liability, and a plaintiff 50 percent or more responsible recovers nothing (OCGA 51-12-33(b), (c), (g)).

For example, imagine a cyclist who swerves after a door opens and is struck by a passing car, with a jury finding total damages of $90,000 and assigning 10 percent of the fault to the cyclist, 60 percent to the person who opened the door, and 30 percent to the driver of the car. The judge reduces the award by the cyclist’s 10 percent, to $81,000, and the person who opened the door owes $54,000 and the driver $27,000, each separately.

Frequently Asked Questions

When else may a cyclist leave the right side of the road?
When turning left, avoiding hazards to safe cycling, in a lane too narrow to share safely with a motor vehicle, traveling at the same speed as traffic, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one going the same way, or where there is a right-turn-only lane and the cyclist is not turning right (OCGA 40-6-294(b)).

May cyclists ride side by side past parked cars?
On a roadway, cyclists may not ride more than two abreast, except on bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, roadway areas set aside for bicycles, or under a special event permit (OCGA 40-6-294(c)).

Which direction must a cyclist ride in a bicycle lane?
In the same direction as traffic on the roadway (OCGA 40-6-294(f)).

Can a driver who did not touch anyone share the fault?
In Vaughan v. Glymph, 241 Ga. App. 346 (1999), a truck fishtailed partly into the next lane on an icy road, another driver swerved around it, crossed the median, and struck the plaintiffs’ car head-on, and the Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the truck driver because fact questions remained on negligence and proximate cause.

  • OCGA 40-6-243; OCGA 40-6-291(a); OCGA 40-6-294(a), (b), (c), (f); OCGA 40-6-296(d)(5); OCGA 40-6-292(e)
  • OCGA 51-12-33(b), (c), (g)
  • Hite v. Anderson, 284 Ga. App. 156 (2007)
  • Humphreys v. Kipfmiller, 237 Ga. App. 572 (1999) (as quoted in Hite v. Anderson)
  • Roberts v. Ledbetter, 218 Ga. App. 860 (1995) (as quoted in Hite v. Anderson)
  • Duncan v. Randolph, 236 Ga. App. 566 (1999) (as quoted in Hite v. Anderson)
  • Vaughan v. Glymph, 241 Ga. App. 346 (1999)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about bicycle dooring claims under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Fault depends on how the door was opened, where the cyclist was riding, and what followed. Anyone injured in a dooring crash should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. Expert Witnesses in Georgia Injury Cases: Who You Need and Why Whether a Georgia injury case needs an expert, and which one, depends on the question the jury has to answer. A lay jury can decide some questions from common experience.......
  2. College Campus Injury Claims in Georgia Whether a college is public or private decides which statutes govern an injury on its campus. A claim against a state institution runs through the Georgia Tort Claims Act, with......
  3. Boating and Watercraft Accident Claims in Georgia In a civil claim, Georgia's statutes treat a boat much as they treat a car: the owner of a watercraft "shall be liable for any tort caused by the operation......
  4. Gym and Fitness Center Injuries in Georgia Georgia's courts have held that a business can release itself from its own negligence but not from gross negligence or wilful misconduct, and the exact words of a release can......
  5. Delivery Van Accidents: Amazon, FedEx, and UPS Claims After a crash with a delivery van, the person who was hit needs to know who stands behind the driver and what coverage stands behind the van. Georgia law answers......
  6. Claims Against Georgia State Agencies: Tort Claims Act Explained Yes, a Georgia state agency can be sued for an injury its employee causes while on the job, but only on the terms of the Georgia Tort Claims Act, and......
  7. Falling Merchandise Injuries in Georgia Stores A shopper struck by merchandise that falls from a shelf or stack raises a premises question that differs from a slip on a spill. In a spill case the dispute......
  8. Georgia’s 50% Bar Rule: How Comparative Negligence Affects Your Claim Georgia's 50 percent bar decides whether an injured person's award shrinks or disappears. If the trier of fact finds the injured person less than 50 percent responsible, the judge reduces......
  9. Aviation Accident Claims in Georgia: Pursuing Compensation for Plane Crashes and Air Travel Injuries After a plane crash, federal law decides several things a Georgia claim can and cannot do. Courts disagree over whether federal law supplies the standard of care in aviation safety.......
  10. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Georgia Rental Properties Carbon monoxide has no odor or color, and MedlinePlus lists heating systems, stoves, and gas ranges among its sources. When a tenant is harmed by it in a rented home,......
  11. ATV and Off-Road Vehicle Accident Claims in Georgia Riding an ATV on someone else's land in Georgia brings two statutes into an injury claim before any question of fault. The off-road vehicle chapter makes riding on private property......
  12. Dangerous Pharmaceutical Side Effects in Georgia: Drug Injury Lawsuits A patient harmed by a prescription drug's side effect, who believes the label failed to warn of that risk, meets federal law before Georgia law: whether the manufacturer could have......
  13. Filing a Personal Injury Lawsuit in Georgia Superior Court A personal injury case becomes a lawsuit at a precise moment, and several Georgia statutes govern what follows: the filing itself, who may serve the papers and within what time,......
  14. E-Cigarette Explosions in Georgia: Vape Battery Injuries and Product Liability When a vape device overheats, catches fire, or explodes and injures the person carrying or using it, the claim begins with who can be sued and on what theory. Georgia's......
  15. Nominal Damages in Georgia: When Winning Means Almost Nothing Georgia law allows a verdict that finds a defendant liable but awards only a token amount. The damages statute provides for nominal damages where the injury is small or the......
  16. Inadequate Lighting and Parking Lot Crimes in Georgia Whether a poorly lit parking lot supports a claim after a robbery or assault depends first on the date of the crime. Georgia enacted a negligent security statute in 2025......

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *