Many states have laws requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. These laws can be a deciding factor in your ability to recover for head and neck injuries in a motorcycle accident. Recovery depends on your state's motorcycle helmet law, the nature of your injuries, and whether you were wearing a helmet during the accident. (To learn about liability for accidents when motorcycles ride between lanes, read Nolo's article Motorcycle Accidents: Lane Splitting.) Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that wearing a motorcycle helmet significantly reduces the incidence of head injuries in accidents. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates, for every 100 motorcyclists killed in a crash while not wearing a helmet, 37 would have survived if they had been wearing a helmet. And that doesn't even count the enormous reduction in non-fatal injuries achieved by helmets. All in all, these are overwhelming numbers. For this reason, the vast majority of states require at least some motorcycle riders to wear helmets.

In some states, all riders must wear helmets. In others, only motorcycle riders under a certain age must wear helmets. Only two states don't have any helmet law at all: Illinois and Iowa. harley fatboy for sale uk If you are a motorcyclist in an accident, your state's helmet law may play a large role in whether you can recover for any resulting head and neck injuries. motorcycle shop in valdosta gaHere are some possible scenarios and what your chances of recovery are in each one.motorcycle shop in ramsey mn If you were wearing a motorcycle helmet but did not sustain head or neck injuries, the helmet is irrelevant to your injury claim. used bmw airhead motorcycles for sale

However, it doesn't hurt to mention the fact that you were wearing a helmet -- it may help show that you are a responsible rider. Likewise, if you were not wearing a helmet but did not sustain head or neck injuries, the fact that you did not wear a helmet is legally irrelevant. This is true even if the law in your state requires you to wear a helmet. If you were wearing a helmet and still suffered head or neck injuries, the helmet is important to your claim. It shows that your injuries were not made worse by your own carelessness. It also shows how much worse your injuries could have been, and therefore how dangerous the other driver's actions were, had you not been wearing a helmet. If you were not wearing a helmet and suffered head or neck injuries, it may be difficult to recover for your injuries -- even if your state does not require you to wear a helmet. If your failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of your injuries, you may be found to be "comparatively negligent" -- meaning you might be found to be partially responsible for your own injuries.

(To learn more about comparative negligence, read Nolo's article Proving Fault in Personal Injury Accidents: General Rules.) Insurance adjusters will likely produce an overwhelming array of documentation demonstrating that helmets usually significantly reduce head injuries. You must then persuade the insurance adjuster that you would have suffered head or neck injuries even if you were wearing a helmet. If the insurance adjuster believes a helmet would have reduced your injuries, then your compensation will be reduced accordingly. If your state requires you to wear a helmet and you sustain a head injury while not wearing a helmet, it will be extremely difficult to recover damages for your head injury. (You may still be able to recover for other injuries, however.) The fact that your state has a helmet law automatically establishes your comparative negligence. A motorcyclist in this situation might still be able to obtain some compensation by proving that the injury would have occurred even with a helmet.

However, this is a tough task and -- if possible at all -- requires the services of an experienced personal injury lawyer. To learn more about liability and recovery for damages in motorcycle and other vehicle accidents, get How to Win Your Personal Injury Claim, by Joseph L. Matthews (Nolo).Helmet Laws and Motorcycle Accident Cases Download article as a PDF A helmet is by far the most important and most effective piece of protective equipment a motorcycle driver or passenger can wear. Helmets save lives by reducing the extent of head injuries in the event of a traffic accident. A helmetless motorcyclist involved in an accident is three times as likely to suffer a brain injury as a motorcyclist wearing a helmet, and a large number of motorcyclists die each year because of head injuries sustained in accidents. Because of this danger, motorcycle operators and passengers in many states are required by statute to wear safety helmets. Despite a lack of support among some motorcyclists, a number of states have enacted statutes requiring the use of protective equipment when riding a motorcycle.

Some of these laws require that a motorcycle rider and/or his or her passenger wear equipment such as goggles or face shields, but most common (and most controversial) are those laws that require the wearing of a helmet. Mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle operators and their passengers have, for the most part, proven to be an effective strategy in both increasing helmet use and reducing head injuries and fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide. But, while having an unmistakably positive effect on the overall safety of motorcycle riding, helmet laws have been met by resistance in the motorcycling community. The most vocal opposition to helmet laws has come by way of challenges to the legality of the laws themselves. Although in some cases, specific language in helmet statutes has been successfully attacked on constitutional grounds, the principle of requiring motorcyclists and their passengers to wear safety helmets has consistently been upheld as constitutional. Failure to Wear a Helmet

In a personal injury action brought by an injured motorcyclist, the opposing motorist may raise an issue with regard to the motorcyclist's own negligence. A motorcyclist's legal recovery might be barred, or reduced, as a result of his/her contributory negligence in causing the accident. In defining what constitutes contributory negligence, there is an important distinction between negligence contributing to the accident and negligence contributing to the injuries sustained. An act or omission that merely increases or adds to the extent of the injuries suffered by the motorcyclist will not itself defeat a legal recovery. In a number of states that have enacted mandatory helmet statutes, the laws either: (1) provide only for criminal penalties, or (2) do not state what effect a violation has on the determination of whether a motorcyclist was negligent. Thus, in these jurisdictions, and in those that do not have helmet laws, the effect of a motorcyclist's failure to wear a helmet on the determination of his negligence is unsettled.

In such states, the failure to wear a helmet may be found to constitute negligence on the part of a motorcyclist, or may be relevant to the issue of injuries and damages where it appears the failure to wear a helmet was a substantial factor in bringing about the motorcyclist's injuries. In some states, the failure to wear a helmet as required by a statute is treated as any other possible act of negligence on the part of a motorcyclist, such as traveling at an excessive rate of speed or failing to use turn signals. In such states, when the failure to wear a helmet contributes to the motorcyclist's injuries, it is deemed a proximate cause of his injuries and it may serve to bar or limit his or her recovery. However, when the failure contributes in no way to the motorcyclist's injuries, it is not a proximate cause and it has no effect on the motorcyclist's ability to recover. Get Legal Help For Injuries If you were in a motorcycle accident (with or without your helmet) and were injured, you should seek legal help.