Search
GO

 

“The High Court in London has held that a cyclist who does not wear a helmet could have their compensation reduced in the event of an accident caused by the fault of another” said Neil Lorimer Head of the Personal Injury Department at Shropshire law firm Lanyon Bowdler Solicitors.

Robert Smith sustained serious head injuries when his bicycle collided with Michael Finch’s motorcycle. The High Court in London ruled that Mr Finch was entirely to blame for the collision because of his excessive speed and riding too close to Mr Smith as he tried to overtake. The Court then went on to consider whether or not he should have his compensation reduced because he was not wearing a cycle helmet.

In particular, the Court noted the guidance in the Highway Code that “You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations”. In his judgment Mr Justice Griffith Williams stated “As it is excepted that the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances, it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one, no matter whether on a long or a short trip or whether on quiet suburban roads or a busy main road”.

Neil Lorimer said “It has been the law for many years that if a person’s injuries would have been avoided or have been less serious if they had worn a seatbelt that their compensation would be reduced by 15 to 25%. The Court has ruled that they will apply the same test to the wearing of cycle helmets. However, on the facts of Mr Smith’s case the Defendant was unable to satisfy the Judge that the serious head injuries that resulted would have been reduced by the wearing of a cycle helmet and therefore Mr Smith’s damages were not reduced. Each case must be carefully looked at on its own facts”.

Not only is there recommendation in the Highway Code for cyclists to wear cycle helmets but the law now recognises that an injured claimant may have their damages reduced for failing to do so.