The Authorities

The Authorities

9.Decisions directly on point have been surprisingly scarce. There has not yet been a case where a Court has found both that a cyclist has been at fault in not wearing a helmet and that this fault has made any difference. Were such a case to arise the maximum deduction should be 15% in accordance with Froom (“a good deal less severe”) since it is hard to imagine a case where injury would be avoided altogether (25%).

10.There are differing decisions (both first instance High Court) as to whether a cyclist is at fault in not wearing a helmet.

11.A (A Child) v Shorrock [2001] CL October Digest 386; HHJ Brown sitting as a deputy Judge of the High Court in Newcastle
14 year old cyclist’s claim dismissed as the Defendant motorist was found to have had no chance to avoid the collision.
But, had liability been established, there would have been no reduction for failure to wear a helmet as there was no statutory requirement for the Claimant to do so and he was not engaged in any particularly hazardous kind of cycling.

12.Smith v Finch [2009] EWHC53 Griffith Williams J
Cyclist who was run down by a motorcycle and sustained serious brain injury was held to be at fault in not wearing a helmet. However the Defendant motorcyclist had not proved that wearing a helmet would have made any difference to the Claimant’s injuries and there was therefore no reduction.

13.In both cases the party who lost the ‘fault’ argument, won the case and could not therefore appeal.