COAST TO COAST BIKER NEWS

Compiled and Edited by BILL BISH
Reprinted with permission of
National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM)

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST HELMETLESS RIDERS

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that ATV riders injured in accidents may have damage awards reduced by up to 100% for failing to wear a helmet. On June 26, 2002, the court issued a decision in an All-Terrain Vehicle accident case that allowed a reduction in damages from a head injury because the injured party was not wearing a helmet, reports ABATE of Wisconsin.

Although this was an ATV case, the court also stated that, "Our conclusion here pertains to helmet use while operating or riding a motorized, non-enclosed, moderate-to-high-speed vehicle such as an ATV or like vehicle."

"The leaders and Legislative Committee of ABATE are taking this threat very seriously and giving it a Level One priority,"reports Dave Dwyer, Legislative Chair for ABATE of Wisconsin. "We have already been in contact with legislators to let them know what is going on and how we feel about it."

Wisconsin State Senator Dave Zien, long time biker and member of the National Coalition of Motorcyclists (NCOM) Legislative Task Force, is working with ABATE to determine if the decision can be applied to motorcycle riders who suffer a head injury while not wearing a helmet.

"We intend to be ready with a bill to introduce when the new legislature comes into session in January,"said Dwyer. " If for some reason this decision cannot be applied to motorcycles, I feel that we should go ahead with language to clarify how the courts should handle the no helmet defense."

Wisconsin has enacted legislation that allows damages to be reduced by 15% for anyone injured in a car accident who is not wearing a seat belt, in reaction to an earlier Wisconsin Supreme Court decision regarding seat belt use and injury damages award reductions. But the high court refused to transfer that over to the helmet use case, even though they used the seat belt use ruling as a guide in their recent decision.

The court stated, that, ultimately, is a question for the legislature.

 

 

Untitled Document
Google
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX