Now, sending your child out on a bicycle can be pretty daunting and scary for parents. Most of the time, a little consolation is that they are well kitted up with their reflective clothing, lights and of course a helmet to help keep them safe on the roads.
However, children do not always like to do as they are told or advised and will often remove the things that are keeping them safe as cyclists; especially the helmet. I remember getting to the end of the path, away from the house and removing the awful and un-cool helmet my mum made me wear when I was a kid!
As an adult now, I do see the significance and the benefit of wearing a helmet, but as a child, it is often a case of image over safety, even in the very young. So what does the law state about children who have been injured in an accident as a cyclist and were not wearing a helmet???
Well, as ever, the law is very child friendly and in fact it seems to be that, although a child fails to wear a helmet, they are not always found to be contributory negligent (partly responsible) for the injuries sustained. An adult in this sort of instance usually would if any head injuries sustained could have been prevented or could have been less serious if a helmet was worn.
Miles V Parsons a child was injured on his paper round on his cycle. It was held that there was no legal implication of not wearing a helmet on the child’s claim. The newsagent who employed the child to do the paper round was criticised for not advising the child to wear a helmet. The Highway Code rule 59 requires a cyclist to wear a helmet which should be the correct size, securely fastened and conform to regulations. However this is only a recommendation and not a legal obligation.
This is shown in the case of A (a child) V Shorrock in which a request to reduce the Childs damages for contributory negligence was declined. There is no statutory requirement to wear a helmet and the child was not engaging in any dangerous driving.
This case suggests that if the child was engaging in dangerous driving on the bicycle and was not wearing a helmet, that the request for a reduction in the damages received may have been granted. Therefore it is important to get legal and professional advice on individual circumstances. Although case law at the moment seems not to hold it against children to not wear helmets, this may change.
In the case of Swinton V Annabel’s Ltd the Defendant argued that not wearing a helmet was equal to not wearing a seatbelt.
I do not believe that any child should be cycling around without a helmet on, but as previously discussed, you cannot always control what they do. Maybe this is something that needs to be made a legal requirement; however until this is done, the law is not penalising children for this in most instances.
So if your child has been involved in an accident and injured as a cyclist, with or without a helmet, please contact The Injury Lawyers claims line on 0800 634 75 75 for tailored advice on your situation.
