How helmet use affects damage recovery in Georgia motorcycle cases

Not wearing a helmet does not by itself bar a rider’s recovery in Georgia, and it has no connection to who caused a crash. Its effect on damages depends on proof that a helmet would have changed a specific injury, and on how the court structures the fault question. Georgia’s motorcycle statute has no rule on this, and it would be a mistake to treat any fixed reduction or a “head injuries only” limit as settled.

What the law says and what it leaves open

Source	What it settles	What it leaves open
§ 40-6-315	Helmet is required	Nothing on civil use
§ 51-12-33(a)	A plaintiff "to some degree responsible for the injury or damages claimed" has the award reduced	How to apply one percentage to several injuries
§ 51-12-33(g)	No recovery at 50 percent or more	Whether a helmet share counts alone or combines with crash fault
Stockert v. Rogers, A21A1047 (2021)	Public policy borrowed from bicycle statutes isn't a basis to exclude	Whether the evidence is relevant in a motorcycle case

Stockert involved a motorized skateboard, and it says such evidence “may or may not be relevant under the circumstances of a given case”. A lawyer should check for any controlling decision before relying on a statement that “helmet evidence comes in” or “stays out”. The defense’s helmet arguments are at helmet defense arguments. This page deals with the effect on the money.

Seat belts offer a comparison but not a rule. Georgia had a statute saying that non-use “shall not be considered evidence of negligence or causation”, at § 40-8-76.1(d), and the 2025 law changed that for actions commenced on or after April 21, 2025. There is no parallel text for helmets, so a seat belt ruling doesn’t automatically apply.

Three ways a court could treat it

A helmet does nothing for a broken femur, and a fair way of handling this is to confine the point to the injury it relates to. But the law has no prescribed verdict form, so these are the structures to think through.

Approach	How it works	Risk
Causation of the injury	The defense must show which injury a helmet would have prevented or reduced, and the jury awards only what the defendant caused	Depends on expert proof
Separate percentages by injury	The verdict form separates head and other injuries	The court has to agree to the form
One overall percentage	A single share for the rider across everything	Overstates the helmet's relevance to other injuries

The arithmetic shows why the structure matters. For example, imagine a jury that puts a 20 percent share on a rider for not wearing a helmet. Applied to head injury damages only, it reduces that part of the award. Applied to everything, it also cuts the award for injuries a helmet couldn’t have affected. So the plaintiff should ask for a form that keeps these separate, and do so before trial.

The 50 percent bar makes this urgent. If crash fault and helmet fault are combined into one number, a rider with a modest share of crash fault could be pushed toward the line because of a choice that didn’t cause the collision. A plaintiff’s counsel should raise that risk specifically.

The numbers people quote

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, helmets “are about 37% effective in preventing motorcycle deaths” and “about 67% effective in preventing brain injuries”, from separate studies of 2004 and 2008. These are population figures, and a 67 percent figure doesn’t mean a 67 percent cut in a person’s brain injury award, or that a person’s injury had a 67 percent chance of being prevented.

To use such numbers, a witness has to connect them to this crash, under § 24-7-702. A rider’s expert can address what the helmet standard tests, and whether the forces and mechanism here were within it.

Evidence that decides the issue

Where and how the head was hit. Marks, scalp injuries, and the imaging can show a direct blow, or something else.

Crash forces. Speed and what was struck.

Other injuries. Neck and facial injuries raise their own questions, since a helmet’s effect on those is not a simple yes or no.

Medical causation. Treating doctors may be able to separate head injury effects from those of other injuries or pain medication.

The helmet itself, if worn. A rider wearing a helmet can still face claims it was not approved, had been damaged, or was not fastened. Keep it unaltered, as § 40-6-315(d) puts approval with the commissioner and a qualified person may need to examine it.

If the rider had no head injury

The point should have no effect on damages, and a motion in limine can say so under §§ 24-4-402 and 24-4-403. Otherwise it’s only a character argument. In that situation the fight is over speed and lane position and over bias.

Passengers

A passenger who wore no helmet faces the same statute, since it applies to anyone who rides. A passenger’s share is theirs, and it isn’t assigned to the operator. If an operator provided no helmet, or told the passenger not to wear one, that may come up in dividing fault.

At settlement

Offers may contain a discount for this, but no rate applies by law. To judge one, compare the share of damages tied to the head injury, the strength of the expert proof, and the chance of a combined percentage. Also ask what coverage is available, because a discount from a number above the policy limit may not matter in the end. In a limits case, the helmet argument can matter less than it first appears.

Sources

• Stockert v. Rogers, A21A1047
• IIHS, Fatality Facts 2024: Motorcycles and ATVs
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 24-4-402, 24-4-403, 24-7-702, 40-6-315, 40-8-76.1, 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.