If you're an Ontario motorcyclist, make sure that you're wearing the right kind of helmet. First, of course, you want the best available protection for your head.
But second, if you are unfortunate enough to be injured in a motorcycle accident, don't let the 'wrong' kind of helmet be the basis for an insurance company's argument that your personal injury compensation should be reduced because of 'contributory' negligence.
In Ontario, the concept of contributory negligence applies in civil actions for compensatory damages when an individual's own negligence contributes to their injury. The use of a certain type of motorcycle helmet, or the lack thereof, can indeed be a factor in determining contributory negligence in such cases.
Under Ontario law, helmets are mandatory for motorcycle riders. The Highway Traffic Act requires motorcycle drivers and passengers to wear helmets that meet prescribed safety standards. The use of a non-compliant helmet, or not wearing a helmet at all, can significantly impact a rider's safety.
In the context of a civil action for personal injury damages resulting from a motorcycle accident, the court will consider whether the injured party's choice of helmet or decision to forgo one contributed to their injuries. If it is found that wearing a proper helmet would have prevented or lessened the injuries, the court may deem this as contributory negligence.
Where a rider chooses to wear an unapproved 'beanie' or open-face helmet instead of a compliant full-coverage helmet, this could be seen as a failure to take reasonable care for one's own safety.
In such cases, if it's determined that a proper helmet would have prevented or lessened the injuries, the court may find the rider partially responsible for their injuries due to their choice of helmet.
However, if the helmet meets accepted safety standards, the analysis may focus more on the nature of the injuries and the specifics of the accident.
For example, open-face helmets provide less protection to the face and jaw compared to full-face helmets. If the rider suffers facial injuries in an accident, the court might consider whether a full-face helmet could have mitigated these injuries. If so, this could lead to a finding of contributory negligence.
In Ontario personal injury cases, contributory negligence is not an all-or-nothing concept; the court may argue that the rider's choice of helmet contributed to their injuries, leading to a reduction in damages awarded, proportional to the degree of fault assigned, aligning with comparative negligence principles; for instance, if a rider is deemed 30% responsible for injuries due to not wearing a compliant helmet, their damages award could be reduced by 30%.
It's important to note that each personal injury case is judged on its specific facts. The court will consider factors such as the nature of the accident, the type of helmet worn, and how directly these contributed to the severity of the injuries.
Simply wearing a non-standard helmet does not automatically lead to a finding of contributory negligence; it must be demonstrated that the choice of helmet was a factor in the injuries sustained. This assessment is part of a broader evaluation of all factors contributing to the accident and the resulting injuries.
But play it safe and ride with a full-coverage helmet that is DOT-, Snell- or ECE-certified and approved for use by the Ministry of Transportation.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.