Helmet defense arguments insurance companies make in Georgia

An insurer facing an unhelmeted rider will argue that the missing helmet caused or worsened the head injury, that it was negligence, and that the rider is careless in general. Georgia law gives each argument a different answer. No helmet does not cause a crash, and § 40-6-315 has no language keeping the evidence out. So the fight is over relevance, medical causation, and how far the point reaches.

Argument 1: “The evidence comes in, period”

It does not come in automatically. It does not stay out automatically, either.

Section 40-6-315 has no sentence on civil use. By contrast, Georgia’s rule for cyclists under 16 says a violation shall not “be considered evidence of negligence or liability”, at § 40-6-296(d). In Stockert v. Rogers, A21A1047 (2021), the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court that kept out no-helmet evidence on a public policy borrowed from those rules. The court explained that evidence is excluded for lack of relevance or under a specific rule, and it said such evidence “may or may not be relevant under the circumstances of a given case”.

Stockert involved a motorized skateboard, not a motorcycle. It gives each side something, since it removes one reason for exclusion but leaves relevance open. A rider’s lawyer can move in limine on relevance and § 24-4-403. A defense lawyer will point to § 24-4-402. A court’s ruling can turn on whether there is expert proof tying the helmet to the injury. Check for any controlling decision on motorcycles at the time of the motion.

A related comparison is the seat belt statute. Section 40-8-76.1, as changed in 2025 for actions commenced on or after April 21, 2025, addresses seat belt evidence in its own words. The helmet statute has no such provision.

Argument 2: “A helmet would have prevented the injury”

This is the serious version, and it needs an expert.

What the defense needs	Questions for the expert
The crash forces	What speed and direction of impact? What was struck?
The injury's mechanism	Direct head impact, or rotation, or neck forces?
The helmet's effect	Which helmet, tested how, and at what impact?
The difference	What injury would remain with a helmet?
Other injuries	What is left outside the head?

A study of helmet effectiveness across a population of crashes does not answer those questions for this crash. The original report should be produced by the witness who relies on it. Under § 24-7-702, the opinion has to rest on reliable methods applied to these facts.

So ask for the defense expert’s file. A rider’s expert may say that the crash exceeded what a helmet tests for, or that the injury came from a mechanism that a helmet doesn’t address.

Argument 3: “It’s comparative negligence”

Section 51-12-33(a) refers to a plaintiff “to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed”, and that wording reaches more than who caused the collision. So the defense will argue for a percentage against the rider.

The rider’s reply is about scope. A person can be 0 percent responsible for a crash, with a contested share as to one category of harm. How a court would structure that on a verdict form is a question to raise before trial, because a single percentage applied to everything would overstate the point. The stakes are high, since a rider at 50 percent or more recovers nothing. See helmet use and damages on the arithmetic.

The defense may also try § 51-11-7, on avoiding the consequences of a defendant’s negligence. That rule looks to avoidance once the danger is apparent, and a choice made before setting out is a poor fit, though the point should be briefed if it is raised.

Argument 4: “It’s negligence per se”

A violation of § 40-6-315 is a violation of a safety statute, so the defense may say that negligence per se applies. Under Central Anesthesia v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728 (1985), that “supplies only the duty and breach of duty elements”. So causation remains, and it is the causation of a specific injury.

Argument 5: “The helmet wasn’t approved”

A rider who wore a helmet may still face this. Keep the helmet, unaltered, with its label. Section 40-6-315(d) puts approval with the commissioner, and FMVSS 218 sets federal performance rules. A claim that a helmet was unapproved needs proof of which helmet it was and what the standards required. A helmet that came off raises another question about fit and retention, and possibly a product claim.

Argument 6: “This rider doesn’t care about safety”

This is the argument least tied to law. The helmet is used as a character point, suggesting the rider is careless in general, or that their pain account is exaggerated. It should be challenged under the rules on relevance and unfair prejudice, § 24-4-402 and § 24-4-403, and through the bias questions in jury selection. Ask the court to limit the purpose if the evidence is admitted.

Who raises it in a UM claim

A rider’s own UM carrier stands in the shoes of the at-fault driver for damages, and it may raise the same points. Read the policy for any helmet language, and raise any bad faith concern separately. See UM coverage for motorcycles.

Practical response list

1. Preserve the helmet and any damage to it.
2. Separate head and non-head injuries in medical summaries and bills.
3. Ask what happened to the head: direct impact, or other forces.
4. Retain a biomechanical expert if the injury’s size justifies it.
5. Move in limine on any use unconnected to a head injury.
6. Keep the crash story on the driver’s conduct.
7. Evaluate settlement offers with that risk in mind, since no general discount rate exists.

The helmet law itself is at the universal helmet statute.

Sources

• Stockert v. Rogers, A21A1047
• Central Anesthesia v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728
• 49 C.F.R. § 571.218
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 24-4-402, 24-4-403, 24-7-702, 40-6-296, 40-6-315, 40-8-76.1, 51-11-7, 51-12-33

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.