Originally Posted by
rydabent
As I pointed out you can google "cyclist at fault for not wearing a helmet". In many cases where cyclist were hit and injured, but not at fault, when the case got to court the driver's lawyer made the case that by not wearing a helmet the cyclist was at fault or partly at fault.
Like helmets or not, they can be useful and an anti lawyer device in case of an accident. BTW before replying, dont annoy us with the diatribe "I ride safe and never will get into and accident" nonsense.
Can you find me a case of this in the US where cyclist not wearing a helmet was found partially at fault because of it? Actually, I'd prefer you posted at least three of the "many" cases you claimed.
Because when I Google as you indicate, in the first two pages, there is exactly one case that comes up, a pending case in Germany, where the defendant's lawyer is claiming such, but for which no decision has been made.
In fact, Googling your exact words brought up an interesting examination of this on a
lawyer's website:
CAN EVIDENCE BE PRESENTED TO A JURY THAT YOU DID NOT WEAR A HELMET?
If you are injured in a Wisconsin bicycle collision with a vehicle and were not wearing a helmet during the collision, it is unlikely that the jury will hear evidence of this.
ARE YOU PARTIALLY AT FAULT FOR YOUR INJURIES IF YOU DON'T WEAR A HELMET?
In Wisconsin, if you are hit by a car while riding your bicycle, there may be an issue involving what percentage at fault you were. Generally, any recovery you obtain at trial will be reduced by the amount you are determined to be at fault. (Note, this is a general rule and there are exceptions). The question is, what if you are bicycling without a helmet. Should your damage award be reduced because you didn't have a helmet on? Answer-most likely no.
So not only did I not find "many" as you indicated I would, I didn't find any in the two pages of research I put into it.
Were you just hoping no one would follow through with the Google search you suggested?