Motorcycles provide little physical protection when a collision occurs, which is one reason New Jersey requires protective helmets for motorcycle operators and passengers. Under N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.7, a rider must wear a properly sized, securely fitted helmet with a neck or chin strap and reflectorized material on both sides. New Jersey safety guidance also directs riders to use helmets certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.
Failing to wear a compliant helmet does not automatically prevent an injured rider from bringing a personal injury claim. However, the defense may argue that helmet nonuse increased the severity of certain injuries. That question is generally separate from determining who caused the motorcycle crash.
Key Takeaways: Helmet Laws for New Jersey Motorcycle Riders
- Helmets are generally mandatory: New Jersey requires motorcycle operators and passengers to wear qualifying protective helmets.
- Specific safety features are required: A helmet must fit securely, be properly sized, have a neck or chin strap, and be reflectorized on both sides.
- The helmet should meet federal standards: Riders should look for a helmet certified by its manufacturer as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218.
- Operators need eye protection: New Jersey law also requires motorcycle operators to wear approved goggles or a face shield.
- Helmet violations do not carry motor vehicle points: State law prohibits the Motor Vehicle Commission from assessing points solely for failing to wear a protective helmet.
- Helmet nonuse may affect certain damages: If the defense presents adequate evidence that a compliant helmet would have prevented or reduced a particular injury, the rider’s compensation for that injury may be reduced.
- Crash-related fault is evaluated separately: A rider’s negligence in causing the collision is governed by New Jersey’s modified comparative negligence rule.
- Filing deadlines still apply: Most New Jersey personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years after the claim accrues, although exceptions and shorter notice deadlines may apply.
What Are New Jersey’s Motorcycle Helmet Requirements?
New Jersey requires a motorcycle operator or passenger to wear a securely fitted protective helmet that is the proper size for that person. The helmet must also be equipped with either a neck strap or chin strap and must be reflectorized on both sides.
State safety guidance identifies a helmet that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 as the appropriate type of helmet. Riders can look for the required DOT certification label on the outside back of the helmet. That label represents the manufacturer’s certification that the helmet complies with the federal safety standard; NHTSA does not individually approve every helmet before it is sold.
A compliant helmet should meet the following requirements:
- It is certified by the manufacturer as meeting FMVSS No. 218 and carries the required DOT certification label.
- It is the proper size and fits securely on the rider’s head.
- It has a functional neck or chin strap that can keep the helmet in place.
- It has reflectorized material on both the left and right sides.
Under N.J.A.C. 13:20-24.11, the reflectorized area must cover at least four square inches on each side. If reflective tape or another material is added to the helmet, it must be attached in a permanent, weatherproof manner.
These requirements apply in addition to New Jersey’s other motorcycle laws. Under N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.8, motorcycle operators must also wear approved goggles or a face shield.
Does Every Motorcycle Rider Have to Wear a Helmet in New Jersey?
New Jersey’s helmet requirement applies to motorcycle operators and passengers regardless of age or riding experience. Unlike states that require helmets only for younger or less experienced riders, New Jersey generally has a universal motorcycle helmet law.
The statute does contain limited vehicle-based exceptions. For purposes of the helmet requirement, a motorcycle does not include a completely enclosed autocycle. It also excludes certain three-wheeled vehicles equipped with an enclosed cab, automotive-style seats, seat belts, glazing around the occupants, and automotive steering.
New Jersey does not assess motor vehicle points against an operator or passenger for failing to wear a protective helmet. However, the lack of points does not make helmet use optional. Riding without a compliant helmet remains a violation of the state’s equipment requirements and may also become relevant after an accident.
Can Not Wearing a Helmet Affect a Personal Injury Claim?
An injured motorcyclist may still pursue compensation when another party caused the crash, even if the motorcyclist was not wearing a compliant helmet. Helmet nonuse ordinarily does not explain why the collision occurred. It may, however, become relevant to whether particular injuries were preventable or more severe because the rider lacked proper head protection.
The defense cannot necessarily obtain a reduction merely by showing that the rider was unhelmeted. It may need medical, biomechanical, accident-reconstruction, or other appropriate evidence connecting the lack of a compliant helmet to the nature or severity of a specific injury.
A frequently cited helmet-specific decision applying New Jersey law is Nunez v. Schneider National Carriers, a 2002 federal district court case involving an adult bicyclist. The court predicted that New Jersey would allow helmet-nonuse evidence when a defendant presents satisfactory evidence that the lack of a helmet increased the plaintiff’s injuries. Because Nunez is a federal trial-court decision rather than a controlling New Jersey appellate ruling, the precise treatment of helmet evidence can depend on the facts and rulings in a particular case.
Any reduction should be limited to injuries that the evidence shows could have been prevented or made less severe through proper helmet use. For example, helmet nonuse may be relevant to certain head or facial injuries but generally would not explain unrelated injuries such as a broken leg.
How Does Comparative Negligence Apply to a Motorcycle Accident?
New Jersey uses modified comparative negligence when an injured person’s conduct contributed to causing an accident. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1, an injured rider may generally recover compensation if the rider’s negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of the defendants from whom recovery is sought. The rider’s damages are then reduced according to the percentage of negligence attributed to the rider.
For example, if a motorcyclist was speeding when another driver made an unsafe left turn, both parties’ conduct may be considered when determining who caused the collision. If the rider is found 20% responsible for the crash, the rider’s recoverable damages would generally be reduced by 20%.
Helmet nonuse presents a different question. New Jersey’s safety-device analysis distinguishes negligence that caused the accident from conduct that may have increased the resulting injuries. Under the framework established by the New Jersey Supreme Court for seat-belt nonuse in Waterson v. General Motors Corp. and applied to helmet evidence by the federal court in Nunez, safety-device nonuse should affect only damages connected to avoidable or aggravated injuries. It should not automatically reduce compensation for every injury or excuse the conduct of the person who caused the crash.
Helmet Use and Injury Evidence
Helmets are principally designed to reduce the risk and severity of head injuries. They cannot prevent every traumatic brain injury, facial injury, neck injury, spinal injury, or death, particularly when a collision involves substantial force.
Traumatic brain injuries can require emergency treatment, rehabilitation, specialist care, and long-term medical monitoring. When an unhelmeted rider experiences a head injury, the opposing insurer may dispute whether the crash caused the full extent of the claimed injury or whether a compliant helmet would have reduced its severity.
Medical records, diagnostic imaging, treating-provider opinions, and appropriately qualified expert testimony may help establish how the collision caused the rider’s injuries. The severity and location of the impact, the rider’s other protective equipment, and the type of injury involved may also affect whether helmet nonuse is relevant.
Establishing Another Party’s Liability
A rider’s failure to wear a compliant helmet does not excuse another person’s negligent conduct. If a driver runs a red light, makes an unsafe lane change, drives while distracted, or otherwise causes a collision, that conduct may support a negligence claim.
Liability ordinarily depends on proving that the other party owed the rider a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused legally compensable injuries. Helmet use generally does not determine whether the other driver violated a traffic law or caused the crash.
Gathering evidence from the scene can help establish what occurred. Photographs of the vehicles, roadway, debris, traffic controls, and visible injuries may assist with accident reconstruction. Witness statements can also provide an independent account of the events leading to the collision.
Police reports may contain officer observations, witness information, citations, diagrams, and reported contributing circumstances. However, a police report does not necessarily determine legal liability, and the admissibility of statements or conclusions within the report may depend on the circumstances.
What Evidence Helps Prove a Motorcycle Accident Claim?
A motorcycle accident claim may require evidence addressing both responsibility for the collision and the extent of the rider’s damages. Helpful documentation may include:
- Photographs and videos from the accident scene
- Motorcycle, vehicle, and helmet damage
- Police crash reports
- Witness names and statements
- Medical records and diagnostic test results
- Ambulance and emergency-room records
- Records documenting rehabilitation or future treatment needs
- Pay stubs, tax records, or employment documentation showing lost income
- Available surveillance, dashcam, or traffic-camera footage
- Cellphone, vehicle, or electronic data when relevant and legally obtainable
- Testimony from medical or accident-reconstruction experts when necessary
Video footage can provide valuable evidence, but its significance depends on its angle, quality, completeness, and whether it can be properly authenticated. Promptly identifying potential recordings is important because businesses and other entities may routinely overwrite surveillance footage.
Medical bills, treatment records, employment documents, and other financial records can help establish economic damages. Medical evidence and testimony about pain, disability, emotional effects, and changes in daily activities may help establish noneconomic damages.
New Jersey’s statute of limitations generally requires a personal injury lawsuit to be filed within two years after the claim accrues. Exceptions and tolling rules may alter that deadline. Claims involving a New Jersey public entity or public employee may also require a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.
Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, Is Here for You
At Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, we believe injured riders deserve access to experienced legal representation, regardless of their financial circumstances or the complexity of their cases. You do not have to handle insurance questions, disputed medical evidence, and filing requirements on your own.
Our team is available 24/7 to listen to your story, review the circumstances of the collision, and explain how New Jersey’s helmet and comparative-negligence rules may affect your claim. We can gather evidence, communicate with insurers, and pursue the compensation available under the law. Contact us today for a free, no-obligation legal consultation.