Proposals over whether to strengthen or relax motorcycle helmet laws periodically pop up across the United States, often resulting in confusion regarding an injured person’s rights. Proponents of stronger helmet laws argue that they reduce motorcyclists’ risk of injury or death, while opponents claim that they’re an unnecessary restriction on personal rights.
Whether you are wearing a helmet or not can also have a bearing on personal injury claims filed after a motorcycle accident. Motorcyclists injured while riding without a helmet may mistakenly believe they have forfeited their right to seek damages because they were not wearing a helmet. Furthermore,, defendants in such instances often argue that the decision to not wear a helmet constitutes negligence.
Despite this ongoing debate, the issue generally has no bearing on determining who is at fault in the accident — meaning a motorcyclist can still receive compensation even if failing to wear a helmet contributed to their injuries.
Motorcycle helmets and injuries
For years, traffic safety organizations have strongly advocated for motorcyclists to wear helmets while riding. Helmets absorb the impact forces in a crash, helping to prevent or reduce the severity of injuries to the head and neck.
Studies have shown that motorcyclists who were not using a helmet when they were involved in an accident are more likely to suffer severe or fatal injuries. This, in turn, means they require more serious medical attention and incur higher medical costs.
Helmet laws and liability
The Highway Safety Act of 1966 mandated that states require universal motorcycle helmet use in order to receive a portion of federal highway funds. When this sanctioning provision was repealed in 1975, many states — including Connecticut — responded by eliminating or weakening their helmet laws.
Today, Connecticut requires that motorcyclists under the age of 18 and passengers under the age of 18, as well as those operating a motorcycle with a learner’s permit, must wear a helmet that meets federal safety standards. Although there have been several attempts to strengthen this law, including proposals for a universal helmet law, licensed adult motorcyclists in Connecticut are not required to wear a helmet.
Motorcycle helmet laws vary considerably from state to state. Only 17 states require all motorcyclists to wear helmets; some also mandate eye protection. Some states have no helmet laws at all, and some have helmet laws that are only applicable to certain age groups.
This variation in helmet laws means that liability considerations for an accident can change as soon as the motorcyclist crosses a state line. In states with stricter helmet laws, a motorcyclist must consider how a jury will interpret the fact that they aren’t wearing a helmet in pursuing a claim. In states with looser restrictions, the opposite may be true.
How helmet laws affect compensation
Any plaintiff filing a motor vehicle accident claim must establish that another motorist’s negligence is the proximate cause of their injuries. Meaning, if not for the other person’s negligence, the plaintiff would not be injured. In general, the question of whether a motorcyclist was wearing a helmet is irrelevant when determining the cause of an accident.
If a motorcyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time of an accident, the defendant may suggest that this contributed to the severity of their injuries. This could include introducing testimony from medical professionals and others to claim that the motorcyclist could have prevented or limited their injuries if they had been wearing a helmet. A skilled trial attorney will know the steps to take to best present your case.
Issues of comparative negligence may come up when a motorcyclist fails to wear a helmet. Comparative negligence holds that when a plaintiff shares the fault for their injuries, a jury can assign a percentage of the blame to them and any damages awarded in a settlement or verdict will be reduced accordingly. If jurors hold bias due to a motorcyclist failing to wear a helmet, they may hold a motorcyclist at least partially responsible for the injuries they sustain.
Connecticut’s comparative negligence statute holds that a plaintiff can recover damages from a defendant as long as they’re less than 50 percent at fault in an accident. Since Connecticut does not have a universal helmet law, failing to wear a helmet does not factor into this calculation (unless the plaintiff was a minor or using a learner’s permit at the time of the accident and thus subject to the state’s more limited helmet requirements). However, a trial lawyer must consider bias in picking a jury and putting on evidence.
Can helmet use strengthen a claim?
Wearing a helmet can help strengthen a motorcycle accident claim in several different ways. These include:
- Demonstrating responsibility: When helmet laws apply, wearing a helmet proves that the motorcyclist followed the law. This can help reduce the percentage of fault attributed to them.
- Mitigating damages: Wearing a helmet shows that the motorcyclist took reasonable precautions to minimize any injuries, helping counter arguments for reduced compensation.
- Minimizing bias: Given the biases against motorcyclists, including stereotypes that they are reckless or dangerous motorists, wearing a helmet can help overcome these biases by demonstrating a commitment to personal safety.
Let’s review your case
If you or a loved one have been injured in a motorcycle accident, the attorneys at Anderson Trial Lawyers can help you develop your claim and recover fair and reasonable compensation for your damages. Contact us today at 860.886.8845 or by using our online form to schedule a free consultation.
