Originally Posted by
chasm54
... it might have an impact on the damages awarded to the cyclist if the judge is persuaded that a helmet would have limited the injuries. So far, medical experts here have been very reluctant to testify that a helmet would have made a significant difference in any specific case.
Although there have been motions made to reduce or deny damages as a result of a cyclist not wearing a helmet, none have been successful. The reason of course is the protection a helmet can provide is minor in nature, the type of injury that wouldn't qualify for compensation (and if anyone knows of a case that differs, link it)