FREE CASE EVALUATION | 1-800-260-0784

Many states mandate the wearing of a helmet, if someone has chosen to ride a motorcycle on the open road.

Consequences of a rider’s failure to wear a helmet

It could provide a motorist that was responsible for a given accident with the ability to allege that the victim (motorcycle rider) had been negligent, because he or she had failed to wear a helmet.

If the absence of that headgear had contributed to the nature and extent of the rider’s injuries, then it could be viewed as a proximate cause for that harm to the rider’s head. In a state that followed the principle of comparative negligence, the evidence that the victim’s negligence could count as a proximate cause would mean that the other party’s negligence would be viewed as secondary in nature. Hence, the motorcycle rider’s compensation, if any, would be quite small.

The situation that existed following the injury-linked accident could force the injured motorcyclist to seek helpfrom a Personal Injury Lawyer in Bathurst.

—Few motorcyclists make a point of having someone snap a picture of them wearing a helmet, before setting out on a trip. Yet, there is always the chance that the force created by a motorcycle-vehicle collision could result in the removal of the rider’s helmet. If that headgear were not recovered, then the rider would lack any proof of the fact that he/she had been wearing a form or head protection at the time of the collision.
—The motorist that had collided with the motorcycle might claim that the absence of a helmet had caused the rider’s neck injury. However, a good lawyer should be able to demonstrate the extent of a helmet’s protection. That protection might not cover the part of the neck that was harmed at the time of the motorcycle-vehicle collision.
—Maybe the motorcyclist had left his/her helmet at a rest stop, and had chosen to retrieve it. If the motorcyclist’s trip back to the rest stop had led to an accident’s occurrence, then the victim (motorcycle rider) could use a lawyer’s support, during an effort to explain, in court, the helmet’s absence.

How the insurance industry has tried to take advantage of the way that the legal system has supported the laws about protective gear for the head.

At least one adjuster has claimed that an accident victim with a certain type of chronic medical condition should have been wearing some form of added protection.

For instance, one adjuster once alleged that a driver with a ventricular shunt should have been wearing 2 seat belts. Even though no auto parts store had advertised gear such as a double seat belt, the victim’s lawyer did not question the veracity of the adjuster’s allegation.