FREE CONSULTATION How Pennsylvania’s Helmet Law Affects Motorcycle Injury Claims
Motorcycle accidents are often devastating, leading to severe injuries or even fatalities. For riders, understanding the legal landscape surrounding their safety is crucial. In Pennsylvania, the helmet law plays a significant role in motorcycle injury claims, affecting both the legal outcomes and the type of injuries sustained.
Pennsylvania’s Helmet Law Explained
Pennsylvania’s helmet law is unique compared to many other states. Unlike states that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets, Pennsylvania’s law allows certain riders to go without helmets. Specifically, the law applies to individuals who are:
- 21 years of age or older
- Have at least two years of riding experience or have completed an approved motorcycle safety course
- Carry health insurance that covers motorcycle-related injuries
For those who don’t meet these criteria, helmets are mandatory while riding.
The law allows experienced riders the freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet, but this decision comes with potential legal and insurance consequences, especially in the event of an accident. Understanding how this law affects injury claims is vital for anyone involved in a motorcycle crash.
How the Helmet Law Affects Insurance Claims
One of the most significant ways Pennsylvania’s helmet law influences motorcycle injury claims is through insurance coverage and liability. When a rider who is legally allowed to ride without a helmet gets injured in an accident, the decision to wear or not wear a helmet can affect the compensation they receive. This is because, in personal injury law, the concept of comparative negligence comes into play.
In a case where a rider sustains serious head injuries and was not wearing a helmet, the defendant (often the other driver or a negligent party) may argue that the rider’s failure to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of the injury. In these cases, the defense may argue that the rider should have taken reasonable precautions to reduce the risk of injury. This could lead to a reduction in the compensation awarded based on the percentage of fault attributed to the rider for not wearing a helmet.
For example, if the rider is found to be 20% responsible for the injuries due to not wearing a helmet, their compensation might be reduced by that percentage. The outcome of these claims often hinges on expert testimony and the specifics of the accident, including whether the injuries would have been as severe if the rider had been wearing a helmet.
Impact on Legal Liability in Motorcycle Accidents
Pennsylvania’s helmet law also influences how legal liability is determined in motorcycle accidents. In cases where a helmetless rider suffers a head injury, the rider’s decision not to wear a helmet may be scrutinized during the legal process. Although the rider’s choice to forgo a helmet does not necessarily absolve the other party of fault (if they were negligent), it could complicate the issue of damages.
For example, if the other driver was speeding or ran a red light, they may still be primarily responsible for causing the accident. However, the rider’s lack of a helmet could introduce arguments about their own role in the extent of their injuries. This is particularly true in cases involving severe head trauma or traumatic brain injuries, which could have been mitigated by wearing a helmet.
As a result, the helmet law in Pennsylvania can influence the amount of damages that are awarded to the injured party. Even though motorcyclists have the right to choose whether to wear a helmet, the law acknowledges that failing to take safety precautions could impact the severity of an injury and, consequently, the legal outcome of the claim.
Helmet Law and Injury Severity
While the legal implications of the helmet law are significant, the physical impact of the law is perhaps even more critical. Riders who choose to go without a helmet are more vulnerable to serious head injuries, including skull fractures, concussions, and traumatic brain injuries. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), wearing a helmet reduces the risk of head injury by 69% and the risk of death by 37%.
In cases where motorcyclists are injured while not wearing a helmet, their injuries are often more severe, and medical costs are higher. This can lead to more complex insurance claims, as medical expenses accumulate. If a rider’s injuries are substantial, the claims process can become more challenging, as insurance companies may attempt to minimize the payout based on the severity of the injuries being linked to the lack of a helmet.
For individuals injured while wearing a helmet, the nature of the injuries is often less severe, but recovery can still be lengthy and costly. In these cases, injury claims may focus more on the accident’s direct cause, such as the actions of another driver or the condition of the road, rather than the rider’s personal choice of safety gear.
Personal Injury Claims and Comparative Negligence
Pennsylvania follows a comparative negligence rule, which means that the fault in an accident can be shared between the parties involved. This is a crucial factor when it comes to motorcycle injury claims involving helmetless riders. Even if another driver is primarily at fault for causing the accident, the rider’s decision to ride without a helmet can be considered when determining the compensation amount.
For example, in a case where the motorcyclist is partially responsible for their injuries due to not wearing a helmet, the amount they can recover from the other party may be reduced based on the percentage of fault assigned to them. If the rider is determined to be 30% at fault for not wearing a helmet, they may only recover 70% of the total damages awarded.
However, it’s important to note that comparative negligence does not bar a rider from recovering compensation entirely. It simply reduces the amount they can claim based on their level of fault. This system encourages fairer settlements and prevents riders from being unfairly penalized for their personal choices when it comes to safety.
Conclusion
Pennsylvania’s helmet law presents unique challenges for motorcyclists involved in accidents. While the law allows riders the freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet, it also affects their injury claims. Insurance companies, defense attorneys, and courts often evaluate the role that helmet use (or the lack thereof) plays in the severity of injuries sustained in a crash.
Motorcyclists should be aware of how their decision to wear a helmet or not can impact their ability to recover compensation. If you are involved in a motorcycle accident and have sustained injuries, it’s important to consult with a personal injury lawyer who understands the complexities of Pennsylvania’s helmet law and how it might affect your case. A skilled attorney can help ensure that your rights are protected, and that you receive fair compensation for your injuries.