As indicated in previous articles, whilst helmets aren't compulsory in the UK, a cyclist suffering a head injury in a collision caused by another person risks having his damages reduced for contributory negligence for failing to wear one.

This was confirmed by the court last year in the case of Smith v Finch.

For such a reduction to be made, the defendant would have to prove that if the cyclist had worn a helmet, his injuries would have been avoided or would have been less severe.

However, defendants in cycle accident claims still had to prove in court that failure by the claimant to wear a helmet would in fact have made any difference to the severity of the injuries suffered.

What has happened this year?

The case of Phethean-Hubble v Coles, heard in January 2011, affirmed the views taken by the court in Smith v Finch.

The case involved a 16-year-old cyclist who rode off the pavement at an angle onto the road, and was struck by the defendant's vehicle. The cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered very serious injuries.

The court had to consider whether the defendant had been speeding, and whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist; firstly in riding off the pavement at an angle; secondly, in failing to wear a cycle helmet.

The judge was persuaded that the defendant had been speeding. On the issue of failing to wear a cycle helmet, His Honour Judge Wilcox stated, '...there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; ...any injury sustained may be the cyclist's own fault and he has only himself to thank for the consequences... I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cyclist who does not wear a helmet runs the risk of contributing to his/her injuries'.

Following medical evidence from a neurosurgeon and a neurologist, who both acknowledged that cycle helmets are generally beneficial in preventing head injury, the judge concluded that in this case he was '...not satisfied that the wearing of a helmet...would have had other than a minimal effect'. He therefore found that the defendant had failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist for failure to wear a helmet. He did however find that in 'bunny hopping' his bike into the road the cyclist had created an emergency situation, and in so doing contributed to the accident by 50%.

The judgment has become available this month in the case of Reynolds v Strutt and Parker.  In this case, the claimant suffered a serious brain injury whilst competing in a cycle race organised by his employer as part of a staff day out.

On the day of the race, helmets were made available, but only one rider wore one. Near the end of the race, the claimant's bicycle collided with another. The judge found the claimant's employer liable for the accident because it had failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment for the cycle race. In particular, it failed to make the wearing of a helmet a condition of entering the race.

The court had to decide whether the claimant had contributed to his injuries in two respects: by cycling in a dangerous manner, and by failing to wear a helmet.

The court heard from an expert who concluded that if the claimant had been wearing a helmet it was unlikely he would have sustained the injuries he did, and it seems that the parties were agreed that the wearing of a helmet would have made a difference.

When looking at the claimant's actions, the court found that he had had a reckless disregard for his own safety and that he was aware that helmets were available. The court found the claimant two thirds contributorily negligent, but did not apportion this contribution between the two different types of contributory negligence, i.e. the failure to wear a helmet and cycling in a dangerous manner.

The Reynolds case is different from others that have come before the courts because the collision didn't involve a motor vehicle and the impact speed was below 12 mph, which is within the range at which cycle helmets are tested. This means that scientific evidence was available to the court of the safety benefits to the claimant of wearing a helmet. Above impact speeds of 12mph, scientific evidence doesn't show helmets to be effective.

The extent of contributory negligence that would apply where the sole issue is failure to wear a cycle helmet remains unclear.

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.