02

Blog

Court’s Remark About Helmets May Harm Illinois Bicycle Crash Victims

StateBadges_Web_IL

Sometimes a wayward comment by a Court can wreak all manner of havoc.  Recently, I came across such a remark in a federal case from the Northern District of Illinois which I fear could have a negative impact on bicycle crash cases filed in Illinois state court.

The issue which the federal court stepped in pertains to whether a defendant in a personal injury case arising from a bicycle crash may present evidence to a jury that the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. The purpose of such evidence would be to suggest that, where the crash victim sustained a head injury, the failure to wear a helmet contributed to cause the injury and, therefore, is a factor which may reduce the amount of compensation to which the cyclist may receive.  The case, City of Chicago v. M/V Morgan, 248 F.Supp.2d 759 (N.D. Ill. 2003), actually had nothing to do with bicycles or injuries.  The case grew out of an incident in which a barge caused damage to a bridge held in trust by the City of Chicago and which the City was responsible to maintain.  In discussing whether the City was contributorily negligent in its maintenance of the bridge, the federal court noted by way of example that, “Even a thin-skulled bicycle-rider could be contributorily negligent for failure to wear a helmet.” M/V Morgan, 248 F.Supp.2d at 776.

Huh?

No, actually, a bicycle-rider, thin-skulled or otherwise, cannot be contributorily negligent for not wearing a helmet in Illinois. Federal district court decisions do not create authoritative precedent for state courts.  In other words, an Illinois state court, were the majority of personal injury cases arising from bicycle crashes are filed, is not bound by the holding of a federal district court. However, a state court judge, may find a federal court’s ruling persuasive and in the absence of clear state law authority, may choose to follow it.  Federal district courts are after-all supposed to base their holdings on substantive matters (as opposed to mere procedural matters) on the law of the state in which the court sits.  Being the cynic I am, I sense that it is just a matter of time before a defense lawyer in one of our many bicycle crash cases cites to the M/V Morgan decision to persuade a trial judge that a jury should be permitted to consider that an injured bicyclist was not wearing a helmet at the time of their crash.  The effect this could have on the cyclist’s ability receive a fair trial could be catastrophic.  Sadly, in my experience, many folks feel that a cyclist who was riding without a helmet may deserve whatever they get.  Hence, evidence of a lack of helmet could preclude a bicyclist’s ability to receive fair compensation.

Where on earth did the M/V Morgan court come up with its observation about bicycle helmets? For nearly 30 years, thanks to the cases of Hukill v. DiGregorio, 484 N.E.2d 794 (2nd Dist. 1985) and Clarkson v. Wright, 483 N.E.2d 268 (1985), it has been the law of our state that a failure to wear a helmet cannot be used to prove an injury victim’s contributory negligence or to reduce the compensation to which they may be entitled.  A close look at the source of the federal court’s comment reveals that it was not based on Illinois law at all.  The Court cites a federal district court case from New Jersey, Nunez v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 217 F.Supp.2d 562 (D.N.J. 2002).  The holding in that matter, in which the court was applying New Jersey law, found that evidence that a bicyclist contributed to their head injury for failing to wear a helmet was admissible.  In so doing, the court admitting that it was disagreeing with another federal district court in that state, Cordy v. Sherwin Williams Co., 975 F.Supp. 639 (1997), which issued the opposite holding just five years prior.  The Nunez court also acknowledged that its holding was contrary to that of other jurisdictions:  “The majority of courts addressing the issue have, for assorted reasons, rejected the admissibility of helmet evidence.” Nunez, 217 F.Supp.2d at 567.  It explicitly acknowledged Illinois as being within that majority, citing Hukill v. DiGregorioId. at 568.

The M/V Morgan Court’s remark about helmet evidence is neither binding law, nor a persuasive source in support of the admissibility of such evidence.  It is likely, in fact, that the court never intended it to be either.  As noted earlier in this post, the case had nothing to do with a bicycle crash.  It was not a personal injury case.  The court had not been asked to consider bicycle helmet evidence at all.  Its comment about bike helmets was what is generally referred to in the legal world as dictum, an aside remark by a judge that is not intended to create binding authority.  But such comments, like a bullet fired into the air, can cause unintended harm.  Any attorney representing a bicyclist in a personal injury case should be familiar with M/V Morgan and be prepared to educate the trial judge that the commentary in that case concerning bicycle helmet evidence does not reflect Illinois law.

Comments

Minnesota Cycling Advocate
Daniel Brazil Jul 01, 2020

I recently had the great opportunity to interview fellow cycling advocate, Dave Sanderson, the chair of Pedal Fergus Falls, a Minnesota bike advocacy group. What began as a simple conversation about advocacy turned into an inspiring deep dive into the work Pedal Fergus Falls has done and continues to do for our cycling community. Pedal […]

Read More
Bike Safety
Daniel Brazil Jun 05, 2020

As a cyclist (and bike crash attorney), I often worry that I’m placing my life in the hands of motorists each time I hop on my bike. And stories like this one about bike safety recently shared on Outside Online heighten my fears, as cyclist deaths continue to rise across the U.S. even in a […]

Read More
Biking After COVID 5
Ann Groninger May 28, 2020

What will biking after COVID be like? Before COVID, it seemed like there was a handful of people in my city who rode bikes to get places, and we all knew each other. We’ve always had a robust recreational road riding community of people who gather after work and on weekends to head out to […]

Read More
Bike Advocate
Bruce Hagen May 26, 2020

If you’ve ridden a bike anywhere in Atlanta, chances are you’ve met Atlanta bike advocate Angel Poventud.  If you’ve stopped for a post-ride beer, been to an important advocacy event, or to any major Atlanta gathering, chances are you have met Angel Poventud.   It may only seem that Angel is everywhere, but when you […]

Read More
Bicycle accident lawyer group riding in COVID
Kurt Holzer May 15, 2020

Idaho’s Governor Little has issued the State’s planned staged transition away from his Stay-at-Home health order.  Road cyclists continue to wonder how we should engage in group riding under COVID. As a bicycle accident lawyer who deals with the negative aspects of cycling, I have been thinking a lot about when and how to ride safely […]

Read More
Felix Mayer Cyclist killed by car. NO VRU law
Bruce Hagen Apr 30, 2020

On May 1, 2020, the City of Dunwoody’s new Vulnerable Road User (“VRU”) ordinance will take effect, the first such law to be enacted anywhere in the State of Georgia.  Hopefully neighboring municipalities like Sandy Springs, Roswell and Chamblee will follow suit, and more importantly, the State of Georgia.   VRU laws recognize and prioritize […]

Read More
Load More