The "hidden helmet law" in Arizona

• click to rate

  Posted by JypsyJim December 9, 2011 - Filed in Motorcycle News - 1,486 views
  

  I just read an interesting book entitled "The Arizona Motorcyle Accident Guide." It was  written by Arizona attorneys Alexis and Mark Breyer. This might be of interest to those riders in AZ who choose not to wear a helmet, such as myself. In the book they state: "...there is something we consider a 'hidden helmet law' that is used to deny bikers needed compensation. The law was never actually passed by the Arizona legislature and signed into law by the governor. Instead the law was created by a case called Warfel v. Cheney. That court created what is known as 'case law,' which means it is still the law that must be followed, although it came from a court's ruling. That court stated: 'Our {decision} that evidence of helmet nonuse is relevant to the issue of whether a plaintiff could have avoided injuries and whether damages should be reduced accordingly does not lessen the free choice of a motorcyclist to use or not use a helmet. An adult may still, under existing law, freely decide not to wear a helmet. However, a helmetless rider who is injured and brings an action to recover in tort must bear the consequence of the free choice not to wear a helmet by reduction of damages in the amount the jury determines the helmet would have reduced the injuries.' 

  I emphasized that last part in red because of its importance and I re-emphasize; "...a helmetless rider...must bear the consequence of the free choice not to wear a helmet by reduction of damages in the amount the jury determines the helmet would have reduced the injuries." According to this case law this holds even though the motorcyclist was not at fault for the accident. The attorneys Breyer further state: "Under Arizona law, any injuries that would have been prevented by an available helmet are not compensatable...There is no helmet law in Arizona[for those over eighteen] as long as nobody gets hurt. As soon as somebody gets hurt, the insurance company, the at-fault driver,or whomever is responsible will attempt to avoid liability if the victim had no helmet and the at-fault driver or insurance company can prove that the failure to wear a helmet led to the injuries suffered."

  Well, what about if the Jack ass hadn't caused an accident in the first place, there wouldn't be any injuries at all? So what all this means to me is that if I am riding my motorcycle and not wearing a helmet and I am killed in an accident caused by someone else they or their insurance company will attempt to avoid any liability payments by trying to prove I would not have been killed if I had been wearing a helmet. Or if I am severely injured they will try to not pay for any injuries they feel a helmet would have prevented. 

  Another point the attorneys make in their book that I find interesting, though not directly related to the helmet issue, is this:"Many people are surprised to find out that even though they did not get a ticket at the scene of the accident, that the adverse insurance company is denying payment of the claim. That is because under Arizona law, an insurance company does not have to take into consideration the citations that were given at the scene of the accident. The insurance company is able to make its own determination of fault. The citations given by an officer at the scene of the accident are actually not admissable into evidence if the case ever goes to trial."

  I did not know these things and I think it is important for all Motorcycle riders in Az to be aware of them.