Helmet Laws

Especially where accidents involving motorcycles are concerned, a car making a left turn is almost always liable for a collision with a vehicle coming straight in the other direction.

San Francisco Motorcycle Accident Attorney

Motorcycles are small, agile, and powerful. Very little comes between the rider, the machine, and the open road. The same qualities that make motorcycles a thrill to ride also make motorcyclists vulnerable to injury in a crash.

Winning Motorcycle Accident Claims Since 1978

Call 510-431-2598 | 925-308-6484

If you have been injured or if a loved one suffered a wrongful death in a bike crash, please contact the Law Offices of David G. Smith today for a free consultation and case evaluation. To learn more about motorcycle accidents, please review the general information below and visit our motorcycle accident practice area page.

Thank you for contacting David G. Smith. Your message has been sent.

Call us now

or use the form below.

Helmet Laws

Many states have mandatory helmet laws that require motorcycle drivers and passengers to wear helmets while operating or riding on a motorcycle. These laws generally specify the type of helmets that have been approved for use by a state agency. If you have questions about whether CA has a helmet law or whether your failure to obey that law will affect your ability to recover damages in a motorcycle accident case, contact David G. Smith in Oakland to schedule a consultation with an attorney to discuss your particular situation.

Helmet laws vary by state

Wearing a helmet is an effective way to protect yourself in the event of a motorcycle accident. If a motorcyclist is hit and falls off the bike, a head injury often occurs. A helmet may save the life of a motorcycle driver or passenger by reducing the severity of head injuries. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, as of January 2014, 19 states and the District of Columbia had universal helmet laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets, 28 states had laws requiring only some motorcyclists to wear helmets and three states had no motorcycle helmet-use law.

How the failure to wear a helmet can affect your case

In a personal injury action brought by an injured motorcyclist, the defendant may argue that the injured party's own negligence was actually the cause of his or her injuries. Generally, to establish that the injured party was negligent the defendant must prove that the injured party had a duty of some kind to operate his or her motorcycle in a safe and reasonable manner; that the injured party breached this duty in some way; and that the breach of duty was a proximate cause of the accident. If the defendant can prove all these elements and establish that the injured party was negligent, the injured party's recovery may be barred or reduced because of his or her contributory negligence.

In states that have enacted mandatory helmet laws, the statutes may provide only for criminal penalties. In addition, some of these statutes are silent as to the effect that a violation of the law has on the determination of whether a motorcyclist was negligent. In these states, it is not necessarily clear what the effect of a motorcyclist's failure to wear a helmet will have on the determination of his or her negligence.

As mentioned above, many states do not have laws that require motorcyclists to wear helmets. Some courts within these states have found the fact that an injured rider was not wearing a helmet is inadmissible in a personal injury suit.

Legal challenges to helmet laws

Generally, mandatory helmet laws require that drivers and passengers of motorcycles wear a protective helmet or other headgear that has been approved by a state agency. Constitutional challenges to helmet laws in a number of states have had mixed results. Some courts have upheld these laws, finding that they are a legitimate use of the state's police power to promote the general health, safety and welfare of citizens. There is also limited authority, which provides that helmet laws are unconstitutional because they do not bear a substantial relationship to protecting the general public. Courts have held that helmet laws are not discriminatory against a particular class of people and do not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because a helmet requirement is a reasonable means to protect people on highways from the greater hazards caused by the increased risk to motorcyclists. Other courts have upheld helmet laws against arguments that they are unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce, finding that any burden was incidental.

Individuals wishing to challenge the constitutionality of a mandatory helmet law bear the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional. This can be a difficult task, particularly because there is a strong presumption of validity of laws that govern public safety issues.

Talk to a personal injury lawyer

If you were injured in a motorcycle accident and you were not wearing a helmet, you may have questions about whether this will affect your chances to recover damages for your injuries from the person who hit you. Contact David G. Smith in Oakland, CA, to schedule a consultation with a personal injury attorney who can evaluate your situation..

Copyright © 2017 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business

DISCLAIMER: This site and any information contained herein are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek competent legal counsel for advice on any legal matter.

Back to Main