Originally Posted by
joejack951
I have only made it through the first case, Cordy vs. Sherwin Williams (
Cordy v. Sherwin Williams Co., 975 F. Supp. 639 (D.N.J. 1997) :: Justia) but I cannot fathom how that case could possibly be used to support the conclusion you've quoted. It is an explicit example of a court rejecting a defendant's claim that the cyclist was negligent for not wearing a helmet. The case also addresses the issue of comparing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and declares that neither is relevant to the issue of wearing a bicycle helmet which is not a legal requirement for an adult in NJ.
"While the District Court rejected Sherwin Williams’s attempt to assert a “bicycle helmet defense” in 1997,
Schneider National was successful in asserting it in 2002.9"
I'm just lifting the cites, and this quote, from that original link. You aren't disputing that the defense used the lack of a helmet as a comparative negligence defense, surely?