Riding a motorcycle without a helmet in California isn’t just illegal—it can also make or break your personal injury claim. If you’re injured in a crash and weren’t wearing a helmet, the insurance company will likely use it against you. But does that mean you lose your right to compensation? Not necessarily.
In this article, we’ll break down California’s helmet laws, explain how comparative negligence works, and explore how not wearing a helmet can affect your legal claim after a motorcycle accident.
California’s Motorcycle Helmet Law: What You Need to Know
California Vehicle Code § 27803 mandates that all motorcycle riders and passengers must wear a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)-compliant helmet at all times. This law applies to:
- Motorcycles
- Mopeds
- Motor-driven cycles
- Any passengers, regardless of age
Failure to wear a helmet is a traffic violation punishable by fines, but the consequences extend far beyond a ticket—especially if you’re involved in a serious accident.
Why Helmets Matter Legally (and Medically)
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), helmets are estimated to reduce the risk of death by 37% and brain injury by 69% for motorcyclists. In 2022 alone, helmets saved 1,872 lives—and an additional 749 deaths could have been prevented if all motorcyclists wore helmets.
The medical evidence is clear: wearing a helmet dramatically improves survival rates and outcomes. But how does not wearing one impact your legal case?
Understanding Comparative Negligence in California
California follows a legal doctrine called “pure comparative negligence.” This means that if you’re partially at fault for your injuries, your compensation can be reduced by your percentage of fault.
In a motorcycle accident case, failing to wear a helmet does not automatically bar you from recovering damages, but it may reduce your recovery if:
- You sustained a head injury
- The defendant can prove the injury would have been less severe—or prevented—if you had worn a helmet
Example Scenario
Let’s say you’re hit by a distracted driver while riding your motorcycle. You weren’t wearing a helmet and suffered a serious head injury. The court determines:
- The driver was 80% at fault for causing the accident
- You were 20% at fault because your injury was worsened by not wearing a helmet
If your total damages were $100,000, your compensation would be reduced by 20%—resulting in $80,000.
This is the heart of comparative negligence: you’re still entitled to recover damages, but they may be reduced based on your share of responsibility.
When Helmet Use Doesn’t Affect the Case
It’s important to note that not every motorcycle accident injury involves the head or brain. If your injuries are unrelated to helmet use—such as broken legs, spinal injuries, or internal bleeding—the fact that you weren’t wearing a helmet may be irrelevant.
In such cases, a skilled attorney can argue that your lack of helmet use had no causal link to the injuries you suffered, making the defense’s argument for reduced compensation much weaker.
What Insurance Companies Will Try to Do
Insurers often look for any excuse to reduce or deny claims—and not wearing a helmet is a favorite tactic. They might argue:
- You violated traffic laws, which contributed to your injuries
- Your medical costs are higher because of your own negligence
- You assumed the risk by riding without safety gear
These arguments can be persuasive—unless you have legal support to push back with evidence and expert testimony.
Helmet Use and Liability: Real Case Examples
1. Dominguez v. Pantalone (California Court of Appeal)
In this case, a motorcyclist without a helmet suffered head trauma after being struck by a driver. The court allowed evidence of helmet non-use as relevant to determining comparative fault, but emphasized that expert medical testimony was required to link the absence of a helmet to the injury severity.
Takeaway: Medical evidence is key to proving (or disproving) that helmet use would have made a difference.
2. Nationwide Trends
Other states with comparative negligence laws have seen similar outcomes. Courts across the U.S. have ruled that failure to wear a helmet can reduce damages only if the injuries are directly related to the lack of protection. This has shaped how motorcycle injury cases are argued and evaluated nationwide.
Medical vs. Legal Causation: What Must Be Proven?
In California, a defendant who wants to reduce your compensation due to helmet non-use must show:
- You were not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash.
- You suffered a head or brain injury.
- A properly worn helmet would have prevented or lessened the injury.
This often requires expert testimony from a neurologist, accident reconstructionist, or helmet safety expert. Without this, their argument is speculative and may not hold up in court.
The Bigger Picture: Motorcycle Accident Stats in California
California consistently ranks among the states with the highest number of motorcycle crashes. According to the California Office of Traffic Safety:
- In 2021, over 12,000 motorcyclists were injured in collisions
- Nearly 500 were killed
- A significant percentage of fatalities involved riders not wearing helmets
These numbers make it clear: while motorcycle riding is inherently risky, helmet use—and safe driving practices—can make a life-saving difference.
Don’t Let an Insurance Company Use Your Helmet Against You
At Malk & Pogo Law Group, we understand that no two motorcycle crashes are the same. If you were injured while riding without a helmet, you still have legal rights—and you deserve to be heard. Whether you suffered a head injury or injuries unrelated to helmet use, our team can help evaluate your case, build a strong claim, and fight to ensure you’re not unfairly blamed for someone else’s negligence.
Call (818)484-5204 to schedule your free consultation today.