California’s helmet law for motorcycles specifies that all riders must wear helmets, but the helmet law for bicycles and scooters only requires helmets for riders under age 18. Under the state’s traffic laws, a motorcyclist may receive a catraffic citation for not wearing a helmet, but an adult bicyclist is free to choose whether to wear protective headgear or not. Unfortunately, riders do not always get to choose to avoid accidents. It’s important to know how not wearing a helmet impacts your injury claim in California.
Can I Still Recover Compensation for Injuries If I Wasn’t Wearing a Helmet In California?
Any vehicle with an open structure, like a motorcycle, bicycle, or scooter, leaves the rider unprotected in a crash. According to the National Safety Council (NSC), helmets are 37% effective in preventing deadly head injuries to motorcyclists, and bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries in bike accidents by more than 50%. Still, a significant number of riders choose not to wear helmets. Does this affect an injury claim after an accident, even if the accident was the fault of a driver or other negligent party? Unfortunately, the short answer is—yes.
California has a pure comparative negligence system for liability claims under CA Civil Code 1714, which allows an accident victim to recover a portion of their damages even if they were partly responsible for the accident or the severity of their injuries. Under this rule, a rider who suffers injuries may not be able to recover the full value of their damages, because the insurer deducts the rider’s percentage of fault from the amount they pay on the claim.
Understanding Helmet Use and Pure Comparative Fault
Insurance companies assign adjusters to investigate accident and injury claims and assign each involved person a percentage of fault to total 100%. Then, they subtract the injury victim’s percentage of fault from the payout on their claim. For example, if a cyclist suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the total amount of their damages is $100,000, even if a negligent driver hit the cyclist and caused the accident, the insurer could determine that the cyclist was 40% at fault for their injury because a helmet would have prevented it. After deducting this amount, the insurer would pay $60,000 on the claim. In this case, if the rider had worn a helmet, they might not only have prevented their brain injury but also have received the full value of their claim for any other injuries.
What If a Helmet Couldn’t Have Prevented the Injury?
Not wearing a helmet only affects an injury claim if the injury could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. In other words, if a motorcyclist or bicycle rider doesn’t wear a helmet and suffers a TBI in an accident, it greatly impacts their compensation claim. However, if that same rider didn’t wear a helmet and suffered a hip fracture in the crash, their lack of a helmet would not affect their case, since a helmet would not have prevented the hip injury.
Insurance companies may try to use a rider’s lack of a helmet against them in an injury claim, regardless of the type of injury. A Van Nuys personal injury attorney defends the injury victim against these and other insurance company tactics and seeks the maximum compensation available under the pure comparative negligence system. However, the best way to protect yourself physically and financially is to wear a helmet whenever you ride an unprotected vehicle.
