Abstract

Becky Cheney negligently struck Joseph Warfel's motorcycle with her automobile while he waited at a red light. The collision injured Warfel, who was not wearing a motorcycle helmet. Warfel sued, resulting in the birth of the motorcycle helmet defense in Arizona.

The motorcycle helmet defense allows the reduction or denial of recovery to plaintiffs who fail to wear motorcycle helmets. In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, failure to wear a helmet may prohibit recovery altogether. In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, if the failure constitutes comparative negligence, courts reduce recovery based on the degree of negligence determined by the jury. If the jurisdiction applies the doctrine of avoidable consequences, the plaintiff cannot recover any damages which a helmet could have prevented.

This Note examines the events leading to the establishment of the helmet defense, including legislative action and the treatment of the defense by other courts. It focuses primarily on Law v. Superior Court, the seatbelt case providing the precedential basis for Warfel v. Cheney decision. The Law and Warfel decisions are analyzed. Finally, the Note discusses possible legislative solutions to the problems raised by defenses involving safety devices.

How to Cite