🎧 Listen to:
Helmet Laws and Motorcycle Injury Claims
Summary: While not wearing a helmet rarely causes a motorcycle crash, it is the defense's primary tool to reduce compensation under comparative negligence. They argue the rider contributed to the severity of injuries (especially TBI). Victory requires an attorney to neutralize this claim by focusing on the at-fault driver’s negligence and using expert testimony.
Motorcyclists face unique dangers on the road, but if another driver causes an accident, the injury claim can get a lot more complicated because of one thing: wearing a helmet.
Usually, whether or not someone was wearing a helmet doesn’t matter when it comes to who caused the incident. But it can have a major impact on how much money you can receive back. People who ride bikes and want justice after an accident need to know how state helmet laws and personal injury claims operate together.
We at Pyramid Legal do everything we can to protect our clients against defense methods that are aimed to unfairly lower the amount of money they can obtain back.
1. How helmet laws are different in each state
Varying locations of the United States have varying laws about helmets. They can usually be classified into three groups:
- Universal Laws: Everyone who rides a bike, no matter how old or experienced they are, must wear a helmet.
- Partial Laws: People under a specific age (such 18 or 21) or with inadequate insurance don’t have to wear a helmet.
- No Laws: Adults who ride don’t have to wear helmets, but they should.
Following the laws in your state is the first step in making a claim. The defense will quickly point out that you didn’t wear a helmet when you should have to make their client less responsible.
2. The Main Legal Issue: Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence, often called comparative culpability, is the principal technique that an insurance company or defense counsel tries to prove that a motorcyclist without a helmet is lying.
The most important thing is not that you caused the crash, but that you made your injuries worse.
A driver who isn’t paying attention runs a red light and hits your bike. The motorist is fully responsible for the accident. The defense contends that if you had been wearing a helmet, your injuries would have been less serious. But you weren’t, and you got a traumatic brain injury (TBI).
The outcome: A judge might say that you are 20% liable for how bad your injuries are. If your total damages were $150,000, you would get $30,000 less than that.
This defense can be very damaging in states that use Modified Comparative Negligence (where you can’t get any money if you are more than 50% or 51% at fault). It could even stop you from getting any money for pain and suffering.
3. The Lawyer’s Job: Showing Who Caused the Problem
Even if you weren’t wearing a helmet, you can still recover money if someone else caused the accident. Then, the most crucial legal battle is to show that one thing caused another.
A good personal injury lawyer from Pyramid Legal fights back against the defense by
- Focusing on Injuries That Don’t Matter: If you hurt your lower body, such breaking your leg or hurting your spine, it doesn’t matter that you weren’t wearing a helmet when you got hurt.
- Using specialists: Getting biomechanical engineers and medical specialists to testify about whether a helmet would have truly stopped or drastically reduced the precise harm that occured, but typically determining that the impact was too strong no matter what.
- Changing the Focus: Making sure that the jury or adjuster is largely focused on the driver’s negligence (speeding, driving while distracted, etc.) instead of the rider’s conduct that may have made the damage worse.
Not wearing a helmet is a major point for the defense, but it doesn’t mean that recovery is impossible. If you or someone you care about has been wounded in a motorbike accident, you need a lawyer who can handle these intricate issues of comparative negligence.
