OFF THE WIRE
A motorcyclist's decision not to wear a helmet has cost his widow almost a third of his claim against the Road Accident Fund.
In a case before the Pretoria High Court, acting Judge Jan Hiemstra found that the risk attached to not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle was even greater than not wearing a seatbelt in a car.
The judge said there was no difference in principle in omitting to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, but the risk attached to the latter is bigger. A person in a car was at least isolated by the vehicle. A person did not necessarily land on the road in the case of an accident, but this was inevitable when a motorbike crashed.
Judge Hiemstra said in his judgment: "I consider a person who omits to wear a helmet on a motorbike far more reckless than a person who omits to wear a seatbelt>"
The widow, only known as Ms Deale, is claiming damages after her husband Willem died when a vehicle skipped a stop street and drove into his motorcycle. She is claiming for loss of income, but the RAF said it should be accountable for paying less compensation as Deale had been negligent by riding without his helmet.
Deale died due to a fractured skull. The issue before court was whether wearing a helmet would have limited the injuries he suffered to some degree.
Both parties had their own experts who testified in this regard.
Dr JW van der Spuy, who has experience in traffic trauma, said the risk of a person not wearing a helmet suffering skull fractures during an accident was 10 times higher than one who wore a helmet.
They were four times more likely to suffer serious brain damage and three times more likely to suffer facial fractures.
He said by wearing a helmet, Deale could have limited the risk of suffering deadly brain injuries by 90 percent. In other words, he said, if he had worn a helmet, there would have only been a 10 percent chance that he would have suffered the injuries he did.
Dr Leon Wagner, a forensic pathologist and keen biker, on the other hand, strongly disagreed that the wearing of a helmet would prevent a deadly head injury.
Wagner said international statistics on motorbike-related injuries, to which Van der Spuy referred, were immaterial as they did not relate to South Africa.
But Judge Hiemstra said: "The human skull in America or any other place is exactly the same as that in South Africa. Helmets for bikers are also the same. The statistics are thus universal."
While Van der Spuy said wearing a helmet would reduce deadly brain injuries by 90 percent, Wagner's estimation was 33.3 percent.
Judge Hiemstra said it was obvious that a biker must wear a helmet and that Deale was 100 percent negligent in not doing so.
The driver of the vehicle, however, was also 100 percent negligent in skipping the stop street.
However, the blame on the two parties differed as Deale did not contribute to the accident.
For this reason, it was only fair the RAF paid the biggest portion of the damages.
The judge ordered that the RAF should be liable for 70 percent of the damages which the widow could prove. - Pretoria News
http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/bikes-quads-karts/law-stings-widow-of-helmetless-biker-1.1141182
