Can an insurance company reduce your settlement because you weren’t wearing a helmet? In North Dakota, the answer depends on the specifics of your crash and whether not wearing a helmet made your injuries worse. While state law does not require riders over 18 to wear helmets, insurers often use helmet non-use as leverage to argue comparative fault and reduce payouts. A North Dakota motorcycle accident attorney at Pringle & Herigstad, P.C. can protect your claim and fight to ensure helmet use is not unfairly held against you.
What Is North Dakota’s Motorcycle Helmet Law?
North Dakota has a partial helmet law. Under N.D.C.C. §39-10.2-06, only riders and passengers under the age of 18 are required to wear a helmet that meets U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. If the motorcycle operator is under 18, any passenger must also wear a helmet regardless of age.
For adults 18 and older, wearing a helmet is a personal choice, not a legal requirement. This means that riding without a helmet is not a traffic violation for adult riders. However, that legal freedom does not mean helmet status is irrelevant when it comes to a personal injury claim after a crash.
How Can Not Wearing a Helmet Affect Your Injury Claim?
Even though North Dakota law does not require helmets for adult riders, insurance companies regularly use helmet non-use as a defense strategy. When an unhelmeted rider suffers a head, neck, or facial injury, the at-fault driver’s insurer may argue that the rider’s decision not to wear a helmet contributed to the severity of those injuries.
This argument is tied to North Dakota’s modified comparative fault system under N.D.C.C. §32-03.2-02. Under this law, your compensation can be reduced by your percentage of fault. If a jury determines you were partially responsible for the extent of your injuries because you did not wear a helmet, your damages may be reduced accordingly. Critically, if you are found to be 50 percent or more at fault, you are barred from recovering any compensation.
However, the key question is not whether you caused the accident, but whether the lack of a helmet made your injuries worse. A skilled attorney can challenge this defense by presenting medical evidence showing that the injuries would have occurred regardless of helmet use, such as spinal injuries, broken bones, or internal organ damage.
What Types of Injuries Are Most Affected by the Helmet Defense?
Insurance companies are most likely to raise the helmet argument when a rider suffers injuries to the head, brain, or face. This includes:
- Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)
- Skull fractures
- Facial lacerations and broken facial bones
- Concussions and post-concussion syndrome
The argument is far less effective for injuries that a helmet would not have prevented, including broken limbs, spinal cord damage, internal bleeding, and road rash. Federal safety data show that helmets are approximately 37 percent effective at preventing fatal injuries for motorcycle operators. This means helmets provide significant but not total protection, and their relevance to a specific injury type matters in court.
Does North Dakota Allow the “Helmet Defense” in Court?
North Dakota does not have a statute that explicitly bars or permits the helmet defense. This means that whether a defendant can introduce evidence of helmet non-use is typically determined on a case-by-case basis. Some states have enacted laws that specifically prohibit defendants from using helmet non-use as evidence in personal injury cases, but North Dakota is not currently among them.
In practice, insurance adjusters frequently raise the issue during settlement negotiations, even if a judge might limit such evidence at trial. This is one reason why having experienced legal representation matters. An attorney who understands North Dakota motorcycle law can push back against these tactics during negotiations and, if necessary, fight to exclude or limit helmet evidence in court.
How Comparative Fault Works in North Dakota Motorcycle Cases
North Dakota follows a modified comparative fault rule. This means:
- If you are less than 50 percent at fault, you can recover compensation, but it will be reduced by your percentage of fault.
- If you are 50 percent or more at fault, you are completely barred from recovery.
Importantly, fault for causing the accident and fault for the severity of injuries are two separate issues. You could be zero percent at fault for the crash itself, for example, if a distracted driver ran a red light and hit you, but an insurer could still argue you bear some responsibility for your injuries because you chose not to wear a helmet. An attorney’s role is to keep these issues distinct and prevent the insurer from inflating your share of fault.
Steps to Protect Your Claim After a Motorcycle Accident
Whether or not you were wearing a helmet, taking the right steps after a crash in North Dakota can strengthen your injury claim:
- Seek medical attention immediately. Prompt treatment creates a medical record linking your injuries to the accident, not to a pre-existing condition.
- Document the scene. Take photos of your injuries, your motorcycle, road conditions, and any visible damage to other vehicles.
- Do not give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurance company without legal counsel. Adjusters may ask leading questions about helmet use to build a comparative fault argument.
- Contact a motorcycle accident attorney as soon as possible. Early legal involvement helps preserve evidence and prevents costly mistakes during negotiations.
Talk to a North Dakota Motorcycle Accident Attorney Today
A motorcycle helmet should never be used as a weapon against an injured rider who was not at fault for a crash. At Pringle & Herigstad, P.C., we’ve been standing up for North Dakotans for over a century. Contact Pringle & Herigstad, P.C. for a free consultation to discuss your case and learn how we can help protect your right to full compensation.