Motorcycle accidents will often result in fairly serious injuries being sustained by the rider. We’re more than used to dealing with the devastating effects of these types of accident as we actually specialise in representing victims making a claim after a motorbike accident. From the first day when we speak to you or see you at home or hospital, to the day we settle the claim, we’re here every step of the way.
So I thought I’d write a little blog about contributory negligence in motorbike personal injury compensation claims.
Contributory negligence is an allegation from the defending side of a claim that you are partly responsible for the accident or your injuries. By this point, they will normally have admitted liability, but will be suggesting that they are perhaps 80% to blame and you are 20% to blame. As such, any compensation you receive will be reduced by the percentage of blame that is apportioned to you.
It’s a common argument used by insurers and Defendant solicitors for the simple reason that it saves them money. So in serious injury cases where the payout for the claim could be in excess of £50,000, the other side are naturally going to want to do all they can to reduce the payout. Even with an argument of 10% contributory negligence in a payout like that they are saving £5K. That’s a lot of money.
So to keep on topic of this blog, can you be held contributory negligent for not wearing proper motorcycle protective gear? The short answer is yes.
Helmets
I’ll start with helmets as this is the most common. It is compulsory to wear a helmet, and the helmet has to comply with UK regulation and has to be in a condition to allow it to be suitable for use. So if you fail to wear a helmet and you sustain head injuries in the accident, its highly likely that the other side have a good argument for contributory negligence on your part.
The commonly referenced case law (which is examples from previous cases to help guide new ones) say that failing to wear a helmet could result in a reduction of 15%. In the case of O’Connell v Jackson, the rider sustained severe head injuries after being knocked off his moped. He faced a reduction of 15%.
The other commonly referenced example is that of Capps v Miller in which the helmet came off the rider because the straps were not attached. In this case, the rider had a reduction of 10%.
If, however, you sustain no head injury whatsoever, you cannot really be penalised for not wearing a helmet. A reduction for contributory negligence is about whether the rider was negligent. Not wearing a helmet is reckless and is against the law, but if you do not suffer with a head injury, your injuries have not been made worse by your own negligence.
General Gear
A rider should wear general protective gear as well. But the common one when it comes to an argument for contributory negligence in relation to gear is reflective gear at night. There are specific lighting requirements for the bike itself, but a rider should do all they can to make themselves as visible as possible.
As a specialist firm of personal injury lawyers, we’re more than used to fighting for the maximum amount of compensation for our clients. We will always do all that we can to make sure you get the most for your claim – so give us a call on 0800 634 75 75 today.
References: www.gov.uk/rules-motorcyclists-83-to-88/general-guidance-83-to-88
