$36.0M
Recovery for a pedestrian who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck by a vehicle.
Personal Injury
California's Helmet Law — and What It Really Means for Your Case
California is a universal helmet state: every rider and every passenger, every age, every ride. That’s Vehicle Code § 27803, and it has protected riders here since 1992. But the courtroom question is different from the roadside one. What happens to your motorcycle injury claim if you weren’t wearing a helmet — or were wearing one that wasn’t fastened, didn’t fit, or wasn’t DOT-compliant? The answer surprises most riders: your claim survives, and the burden of turning helmet non-use into reduced damages sits on the defense, with expert testimony required to carry it.
- $3B+RECOVERED
- 7X"BEST LAW FIRM" AWARDS
- 24/7AVAILABILITY & SUPPORT
- 500+LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
Understanding Your Motorcycle Accident Case
Explore essential resources on your rights, your options, and what to expect — everything you need to navigate the legal process, all in one place.
Every driver and passenger of a motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or motorized bicycle must wear a safety helmet meeting the standards of Vehicle Code § 27802, which incorporates the federal DOT standard (FMVSS 218). Subdivision (e) is the part everyone misses: "wearing" a helmet means having it on your head, fastened with the straps, and fitted so it doesn't move excessively. An unbuckled helmet, an oversized helmet, or a novelty shell is legally not wearing a helmet — a detail that cuts both ways in litigation and that we examine closely in every head-injury case.
California courts treat restraint-nonuse arguments under a demanding standard drawn from the seat-belt cases: the defense must establish both that a reasonable person would have used the restraint and — the hard part — what injuries would have resulted had it been used, which requires expert biomechanical or medical testimony. A jury cannot be invited to guess. In practice, that means a defense that shows up with an adjuster's opinion instead of a qualified expert cannot lawfully reduce your damages, and even a well-supported defense reduces only the helmet-preventable component.
No. A helmet that doesn't meet FMVSS 218 — the thin "novelty" shells sold as accessories — does not satisfy § 27803, no matter what sticker it carries. If you crashed in one, expect the defense to treat you as unhelmeted; the same expert-testimony burden applies to any damages reduction. If a helmet marketed as DOT-compliant failed catastrophically in your crash, a separate product liability claim against its manufacturer may exist alongside your crash claim.
Yes — § 27803 covers passengers identically, and it is unlawful to carry a passenger who isn't wearing a compliant helmet. An injured passenger generally has claims against every negligent party: the other driver, and in some cases the operator of their own motorcycle. A passenger's helmet non-use is analyzed the same way a rider's is — a damages question the defense must prove, never a bar.
Not at all — and this is the point insurers blur. Helmet arguments can only touch injuries a helmet could have prevented: certain head and some facial injuries. Your broken femur, degloved forearm, spinal damage, internal bleeding, bike damage, lost wages — none of it is reduced by helmet non-use. In a typical severe motorcycle case, the majority of damages sit entirely outside the helmet argument's reach — see how the pieces are valued in our guide to motorcycle settlement value, and if head trauma is involved, our brain injury lawyers work the case alongside the motorcycle team.
Meet Our Motorcycle Accident Attorneys
Nationally-Recognized Powerhouse, Fighting for the Justice You Deserve
Our award-winning attorneys have recovered billions for clients while taking on insurance companies and major corporations.
Colin M. Jones, Esq.Senior Partner and Senior Trial Attorney, Chair of the Personal Injury Litigation Department
Jennifer P. Burkes, Esq.Senior Partner & Strategic Advisor, Personal Injury Litigation Department
Mary Lee Caruso, Esq.Senior Partner
Ryan Casey, Esq.Senior Partner and Trial Attorney
Tae-Yoon Kim, Esq.Senior Partner
Alivia E. Abreu, Esq.Partner
Shervin G. Ghanoongooi, Esq.Partner
Christopher Goodroe, Esq.Partner
Nathan A. Guest, Esq.Partner and Trial Attorney
Brian M. Jacobson, Esq.Partner
Ariella Perry, Esq.Partner$28.5M
Recovery for victims of a rear-end collision involving a commercial truck.
$14.5M
Recovery for a victim who suffered a traumatic brain injury due to unsafe property conditions.
$14.0M
Recovery for a victim injured in a motorcycle accident.
$13.5M
Recovery for victims injured in a collision involving a commercial truck.
$12.8M
$12.0M
$11.3M
$11.0M
$10.5M
$10.3M
$10.0M
$9.5M
$9.1M
$8.3M
$8.0M
$7.0M
$6.2M
$6.0M
$6.0M
$5.8M
$5.0M
$5.0M
$5.0M
$5.0M
$4.6M
$4.4M
$4.4M
$4.4M
$4.1M
$4.1M
$4.0M
$4.0M
$4.0M
$4.0M
$4.0M
$3.8M
$3.7M
$3.5M
$3.5M
$3.5M
$3.4M
$3.2M
$3.2M
$3.1M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$3.0M
$2.9M
$2.9M
$2.9M
$2.9M
$1.3M
$1.0M
$0.9M
$0.8M
$0.7M
$0.6M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.5M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.4M
$0.3M
$0.3M
$0.3M
$0.3M
$0.3M
$0.3M
Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Each case is unique and evaluated on its own facts.
Can You Still Sue If You Weren't Wearing a Helmet in California?
Yes. Helmet non-use does not bar a California injury claim, because liability and damages are separate questions. The other party's negligence — the left turn across your path, the unsafe merge — is unaffected by what was on your head. Helmet use enters only as a damages argument: under California's pure comparative fault framework, the defense may argue some portion of your head injuries would have been prevented by a compliant helmet. To do that, it must prove — through qualified expert testimony, not assertion — which specific injuries a helmet would have prevented, following the framework California courts apply to the analogous seat-belt defense. And the argument reaches only helmet-preventable injuries: it cannot reduce recovery for your fractures, road rash, spinal, or internal injuries at all.
Start Your Free Motorcycle Accident Case Review
- Available 24/7
- Hablamos Español
- Nationally-Recognized Powerhouse Team
As seen in:
We'll contact you within minutes
No fees unless you get paid.
Record breaking results
Winners of #1 Settlements in California
Our attorneys have recovered billions of dollars, including some of the biggest settlements in California.
17#1 Settlements in California, 2022–2024*
TopVerdict #1TopVerdict.com #1 settlements
1–1 of 17
#1 Truck v. Pedestrian Accident Settlement
2024
#1 Multi-Vehicle Accident Settlement
2024
#1 Equipment Malfunction Settlement
2024
#1 Car v. Stationary Object Collision Settlement
2024
#1 Bus v. Passenger Accident Settlement
2024
#1 Whistleblower Retaliation Settlement
2023
#1 Underinsured Motorist Settlement
2023
#1 Slip & Fall Accident Settlement
2023
#1 Negligent Security Settlement
2023
#1 Ladder Accident Settlement
2023
#1 Hotel Premises Liability Settlement
2023
#1 Car v. Car Collision Settlement
2023
#1 Bicycle Accident Settlement
2023
#1 Pregnancy Discrimination Settlement
2022
#1 Age/Disability Discrimination Settlement
2022
#1 Wrongful Termination Settlement
2022
#1 Meal & Rest Breaks Settlement
2022
*#1 settlements in California have been awarded by TopVerdict.com. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Motorcycle Accident FAQs
Our Most Frequently Asked Questions
We've answered the most common ones below. If yours isn't here, call us — we're available 24/7.
Yes. The driver's fault is unchanged, all non-head injuries are fully recoverable, and the defense can only reduce head-injury damages if its experts prove a helmet would have prevented them. Don't let an adjuster tell you otherwise.
Under § 27803(e), an unfastened helmet isn't legally 'worn' — so expect the issue to be raised. It's handled the same way as non-use: a defense burden, expert testimony required, head injuries only.
On highways and public roads, yes — California's requirement is universal, with no speed or distance exceptions.
California sets no minimum passenger age in the helmet statute itself, but the helmet requirement applies at every age, and the seat/footrest requirements must be met. Injured child passengers have their own claims — with special deadline rules.
It doesn't decide it. A citation isn't a damages ruling — the defense still carries the full expert burden, and every non-head injury remains untouched.