Do Massachusetts Helmet Laws Affect Injury Claims?

After a motorcycle or bicycle accident, it’s common for riders to worry about their claim if they weren’t wearing a helmet when they crashed. You’ll even see drivers swear that their insurance won’t have to pay anything because the rider wasn’t wearing a helmet. But while your choice to wear or not wear a helmet may affect how much compensation you get after a bicycle or motorcycle accident, it does not completely bar you from taking legal action.

Working with an experienced motorcycle and bicycle accident lawyer can put you in a better position to fight for the compensation you deserve. Let’s talk about your accident and what comes next. Call Santoro & Gray today.

What are the helmet laws in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts’ helmet rules depend on the type of rider and what they are riding. Motorcyclists, both operators and passengers, have to wear protective headgear(opens in new tab). If their vehicle doesn’t have a windshield or screen, the operator also has to wear eye protection. Because this law applies to all riders, helmet usage is often an issue in motorcycle accident claims.

Bicycle helmet rules are a little more nuanced. Anyone 16 or younger riding a bike on a public way, bicycle path, or other public right-of-way must wear a helmet(opens in new tab). Adults typically don’t have to wear helmets, although it’s obviously still recommended.

Another important law relates to bicycle accident cases involving minors. Massachusetts law limits how violations of child bicycle passenger or helmet laws can be used in civil cases. A violation of these child passenger or helmet requirements cannot be used as evidence of contributory negligence in a civil action.

Massachusetts also requires helmets for e-bike riders 16 or younger and for those riding mopeds and motorized scooters.

Does not wearing a helmet bar you from compensation?

Generally, not wearing a helmet does not automatically prevent you from recovering compensation after an accident in Massachusetts. Failure to wear a helmet is not the same as a crash fault. Consider a driver who turns left in front of an oncoming motorcyclist, opens a car door into their path, or runs a red light and strikes them when the rider has right-of-way. In each of these situations, the driver’s failure to abide by traffic laws and unsafe driving are the cause of the accident—not the failure to wear a helmet.

However, helmet use can be relevant to a claim, depending on the victim’s injuries. For example, if a rider was not wearing a helmet and they suffered a traumatic brain injury or severe neck injury, the insurance company may logically argue that the injuries would have been less severe with a helmet. In situations like this one, the insurance company isn’t arguing that the rider caused the accident. They are arguing that the accident would have been less severe if the rider had been wearing a helmet.

How Massachusetts comparative negligence applies

Massachusetts is a comparative negligence state, which means that an injured person’s compensation may be reduced if they are found to be partially responsible for an accident. If someone is more than 50% at fault for an accident, they are barred from recovering compensation.

In helmet cases, comparative negligence issues focus on a couple of different topics. First, did the rider do something that caused the accident? They may have been speeding or making an unsafe lane change. This would increase their share of fault. Second, did they do something (or not do something) that worsened the injury? In this situation, was the victim’s injury made worse because they chose not to wear a helmet at the time of the collision?

How insurers use helmet use to reduce claims

Insurance companies are very good at finding ways to shift liability and reduce the compensation they pay out. They focus on helmet use to move the conversation away from their client’s behavior to the injured party’s choices. They may claim that the injured person failed to protect themselves, that the injury would have been less severe with a helmet, that some medical expenses are a result of the rider’s own choices, and that the choice not to wear a helmet shows generally poor judgment.

Note that these arguments don’t necessarily mean that the point is valid or that it can actually reduce a rider’s compensation. Insurance companies know that just using these arguments can intimidate an injured person into settling for less.

When helmet use may not matter

Helmets aren’t a relevant topic in every motorcycle accident or bicycle accident. If a collision results in injuries to body parts that a helmet wouldn’t have protected, insurers may have a harder time shifting blame. A broken femur, torn knee ligament, or shattered wrist wouldn’t have had a better outcome with a helmet.

This is also the case in accidents that are so severe that an injury would have happened no matter what. If a crash happens at high speeds or in such a way that a helmet would not have given any real protection to the rider, insurance companies may still try to point the finger at the injured party—but their claims are much less likely to hold up.

Contact Santoro & Gray for help with your personal injury claim

Whether you’ve been injured in a motorcycle accident or a bike accident, the team at Santoro & Gray is here to help you hold the negligent party accountable. Call us or send us a message online to discuss your claim with our team.