Not wearing a motorcycle helmet can affect your motorcycle accident case by giving the insurance company grounds to try to shift blame for your injuries and reduce your compensation. However, this may not have a significant effect on your settlement if you weren’t at fault for the accident.
Insurance companies look for any reason they can to minimize payouts to motorcycle accident victims. A motorcycle accident lawyer can help gather evidence that proves you are not responsible for your injuries and fight for fair compensation on your behalf.
How Not Wearing a Helmet Affects Your Motorcycle Accident Case
Not wearing a helmet can affect your motorcycle accident claim, but it does not automatically eliminate your right to seek compensation. In many cases, liability for an accident and responsibility for injuries are treated as separate issues.
For example, if a distracted driver runs a red light and strikes you while you are riding your motorcycle, the driver may still be held responsible for causing the crash regardless of whether you were wearing a helmet. However, your lack of a helmet may become relevant when determining the extent of your damages.
The insurance company may argue that your injuries would have been less severe if you had worn a helmet and attempt to reduce compensation for certain injuries, particularly those involving the head, face, brain, or skull. Whether they can legally do so will depend on your state’s comparative negligence laws and the specifics of your case.
Do Helmet Laws Matter in a Motorcycle Accident Claim?
Helmet laws vary from state to state. Some states require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, while others only require helmets for riders below a certain age.
In motorcycle accident cases, courts generally consider:
- Whether you violated state helmet laws: A violation may be used as evidence that you failed to take reasonable precautions for your own safety.
- Whether you were exempt from helmet requirements: In states with partial helmet laws, some riders qualify for exemptions.
- Whether your injuries involved the head or brain: Helmet-related arguments are often less relevant if your injuries affected other parts of your body.
- Whether the helmet violation contributed to your injuries: Defendants typically must show a connection between the lack of a helmet and the severity of a rider’s injuries.
Comparative Negligence and Motorcycle Accident Claims
Many states use comparative negligence rules when determining compensation in personal injury cases. Under these systems, an injured person may recover damages even if they share some responsibility for their injuries. However, their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
Insurance companies frequently rely on comparative negligence arguments in cases where a motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet. They may claim that:
- You contributed to the severity of your injuries: The insurer may argue that wearing a helmet would have reduced the harm you suffered.
- Medical costs increased unnecessarily: Defendants may assert that additional treatment became necessary because of the lack of head protection.
- Long-term damages became more severe: Brain injuries, cognitive impairments, and other complications may be cited as consequences of not wearing a helmet.
- Compensation should be reduced proportionately: The insurer may seek to lower the damages awarded to you based on your alleged contribution to your injuries.
The success of these arguments often depends on expert testimony and medical evidence demonstrating whether a helmet would have made a meaningful difference.
Can You Still Recover Compensation Without Wearing a Helmet?
In many situations, yes, motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets can still pursue compensation for their injuries and losses. The key issue is often whether the lack of a helmet contributed to the specific injuries you are seeking compensation for.
For example, if you sustain a broken leg, fractured pelvis, or spinal injury that would likely have occurred regardless of helmet use, the absence of a helmet may have little impact on those portions of your claim. But if you suffer any head injuries, your compensation may be reduced.
What Types of Injuries Are Most Affected by Helmet Arguments?
Helmet-related defenses are most common in cases involving injuries that helmets are specifically designed to prevent or reduce.
Examples include:
- Traumatic brain injuries: Concussions and more serious brain trauma frequently become central issues in helmet-related disputes.
- Skull fractures: Defendants may argue that helmet use would have prevented or minimized your skull injuries.
- Facial injuries: Damage to the face, jaw, teeth, and eyes can be linked to the absence of protective headgear.
- Head lacerations and abrasions: Surface injuries to the head often become part of the helmet discussion.
How Do You Prove You Are Not At Fault?
Regardless of whether you were wearing a helmet in your accident, it’s important to establish that you were not at fault for the collision.
Types of evidence you can use to prove liability may include:
- Police reports: Official accident investigations often provide important details that help establish fault.
- Witness statements: Independent witnesses can help explain how the collision occurred.
- Photographs and videos: Visual evidence may show vehicle positions, roadway conditions, and traffic signals.
- Traffic camera footage: Surveillance footage can provide objective evidence of driver negligence.
- Accident reconstruction analysis: Experts may analyze the crash to determine how it happened.
Get Help From a Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
Just because you weren’t wearing a helmet doesn’t mean you can’t pursue compensation for a motorcycle accident. A motorcycle accident attorney from Sweet James can handle your case, challenge claims from insurers that you are to blame for your injuries, and help you recover a fair settlement.
Book a free case review to discuss your case with an attorney.
