Can Not Wearing a Helmet Go Against You When Injured in a Motorcycle Accident?
Helmet laws and how they pertain to Arizona motorcycle injury accidents are very complex in contrast to what many believe.
According to the letter of the law, in most circumstances, a motorcycle rider does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet in Arizona.
All riders know the part of the law that states it is not a violation for a motorcycle rider to ride without a helmet.
What almost all riders in Arizona are unaware of, though, is that if you are a motorcycle rider and are injured in an accident in Arizona, the insurance company can use the fact that you did not wear your helmet against you.
Basically, what the law says is that it is not a violation of the law to ride without a helmet, but at the same time, the law allows a defendant who injures or kills a law-abiding rider to pay less then what they should owe because the rider did not wear a helmet.
The lawyer for the motorcycle rider is allowed to argue that even if the rider had the helmet on, the rider still would have sustained those same injuries.
The law also allows the lawyer for the motorcycle rider to argue that the motorcycle rider did not have a helmet available for use.
While many feel that it is a double standard that a negligent driver can hurt a law-abiding rider and still be allowed to "get off the hook" based upon the lack of a helmet, Arizona law allows this argument by a defendant.
There are many ways that insurance company lawyers and defense lawyers spin this argument in front of a jury.
For instance, there could be a case where a motorcycle accident victim was not wearing a helmet.
The legal requirement of whether or not the helmet was available for use is not agreed on by the victim's attorney and the opposing party.
This would seem a no-brainer: either the rider had a helmet available for use or the rider did not.
It is an example of the fact that anything that can be argued by lawyers to avoid paying fair compensation will be argued.
That is their job, and you can expect them to do all that is possible to avoid fair compensation to be paid to the person who was injured.
In any case, the evidence currently shows (at most, as even this is argued) that the injured rider in the example mentioned, a grown man, could have had a child's bicycle helmet available to him.
The defense lawyer could blame the rider for not wearing a helmet that did not fit and was not made for a motorcycle and, even worse, they could hire an expert witness who could claim that a child's bicycle helmet would have eliminated all injuries.
On the other hand, a passenger who - at most - was offered a child's bike helmet- does not have a helmet "available" that is of any value to him.
Ultimately, it may be a jury who will decide this issue.
It can be extremely helpful for a personal injury attorney to hire experts, like experts in the protection afforded by various helmets, when representing a victim of a car or motorcycle accident in Arizona.
A helmet expert basically looks at a reconstruction of the accident with the motorcycle rider and examines where the injury occurred to the motorcycle rider.
In knowing how the accident occurred, the detailed circumstances surrounding the collision, and where the rider landed, the helmet expert is able to make a conclusion as to whether a helmet would have prevented injury to the rider had the helmet been worn at the time of the accident.
A helmet expert can even look at a helmet to see if the rider would have been wearing the helmet properly.
According to the letter of the law, in most circumstances, a motorcycle rider does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet in Arizona.
All riders know the part of the law that states it is not a violation for a motorcycle rider to ride without a helmet.
What almost all riders in Arizona are unaware of, though, is that if you are a motorcycle rider and are injured in an accident in Arizona, the insurance company can use the fact that you did not wear your helmet against you.
Basically, what the law says is that it is not a violation of the law to ride without a helmet, but at the same time, the law allows a defendant who injures or kills a law-abiding rider to pay less then what they should owe because the rider did not wear a helmet.
The lawyer for the motorcycle rider is allowed to argue that even if the rider had the helmet on, the rider still would have sustained those same injuries.
The law also allows the lawyer for the motorcycle rider to argue that the motorcycle rider did not have a helmet available for use.
While many feel that it is a double standard that a negligent driver can hurt a law-abiding rider and still be allowed to "get off the hook" based upon the lack of a helmet, Arizona law allows this argument by a defendant.
There are many ways that insurance company lawyers and defense lawyers spin this argument in front of a jury.
For instance, there could be a case where a motorcycle accident victim was not wearing a helmet.
The legal requirement of whether or not the helmet was available for use is not agreed on by the victim's attorney and the opposing party.
This would seem a no-brainer: either the rider had a helmet available for use or the rider did not.
It is an example of the fact that anything that can be argued by lawyers to avoid paying fair compensation will be argued.
That is their job, and you can expect them to do all that is possible to avoid fair compensation to be paid to the person who was injured.
In any case, the evidence currently shows (at most, as even this is argued) that the injured rider in the example mentioned, a grown man, could have had a child's bicycle helmet available to him.
The defense lawyer could blame the rider for not wearing a helmet that did not fit and was not made for a motorcycle and, even worse, they could hire an expert witness who could claim that a child's bicycle helmet would have eliminated all injuries.
On the other hand, a passenger who - at most - was offered a child's bike helmet- does not have a helmet "available" that is of any value to him.
Ultimately, it may be a jury who will decide this issue.
It can be extremely helpful for a personal injury attorney to hire experts, like experts in the protection afforded by various helmets, when representing a victim of a car or motorcycle accident in Arizona.
A helmet expert basically looks at a reconstruction of the accident with the motorcycle rider and examines where the injury occurred to the motorcycle rider.
In knowing how the accident occurred, the detailed circumstances surrounding the collision, and where the rider landed, the helmet expert is able to make a conclusion as to whether a helmet would have prevented injury to the rider had the helmet been worn at the time of the accident.
A helmet expert can even look at a helmet to see if the rider would have been wearing the helmet properly.
