Warfel v. Chaney ruled that a jury could be instructed it could reduce damages if the Plaintiff’s failure to wear a helmet was a failure to exercise ordinary care for safety and this failure caused any portion of his motorcycle accident injuries. The Appellate Court reasoned that accepted premise motorcycle helmets generally save lives and present enhancement of injuries and that government statistically studies show that helmetless motorcycle riders have more than twice the head injury rate and almost six times the fatal head injury rate of helmeted riders. The Appellate Court looked at other states as well as the case of Law v. Superior Court where evidence was admitted regarding the non-use of a seatbelt and injuries related thereto. The Court also noted that its holding that evidence of helmet non-use is relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiff could have avoided injuries and whether damages should be reduced as a result does not impact the free choice of the motorcyclist to use or not use a helmet.]]>
