Nevada requires the driver and the passenger to wear protective headgear meeting the standards the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles adopts whenever a motorcycle or moped is being driven on a highway (NRS 486.231). The statute does not say whether not wearing a helmet can be used to reduce a civil recovery, so an insurer may still raise it when it disputes motorcycle accident claims, and how much weight it carries is a question for your attorney.
| If You Want To Know… | Key Takeaways | |
| How helmet law violations impact liability disputes |
|
|
| How a helmet law violation is addressed when pursuing damages |
|
|
| When a violation may have limited or no impact |
|
|
| Nevada laws on helmet compliance standards |
|
|
| Penalties & fines for not wearing a helmet |
|
|
Overview of Nevada’s Universal Motorcycle Helmet Law
Nevada requires the driver and the passenger to wear protective headgear meeting the standards adopted by the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, securely fastened on the head, whenever a motorcycle or moped is driven on a highway (NRS 486.231). Exceptions include a three-wheel vehicle, other than a trimobile, on which the driver and passengers ride within an enclosed cab, and a motorcycle or moped being driven in a parade authorized by a local authority (NRS 486.231).
When Headgear Is Required
- Whenever a motorcycle or moped is driven on a highway, the statute’s term for public roads
- Both the driver and any passenger
Approved Helmet Standards
Nevada does not set the helmet standard in the statute itself: NRS 486.231 has the Department of Motor Vehicles adopt the standards for protective headgear, and requires headgear meeting those standards. The standard that counts is the one the DMV has adopted, so check the current DMV regulation or ask your dealer. The certification marks riders commonly look for:
- DOT FMVSS 218: the U.S. Department of Transportation certification sticker, the mark most riders rely on
- Snell Memorial Foundation: a private certification, an added assurance rather than a substitute for the standard Nevada requires
The statute itself does not name a style or a list of features: it requires headgear meeting the standards the Department adopts, securely fastened on the head, worn by the driver and the passenger alike.
Penalties for Violations
| Violation | Civil penalty | Other consequences |
|---|---|---|
| Failing to wear the required protective headgear (NRS 486.231) | A civil infraction, with a civil penalty of up to $500 (NRS 486.381; NRS 484A.7043) | The administrative assessments the statute requires, plus 2 demerit points on your driving record (NAC 483.510) |
How Helmet Non-Use Comes Up in an Injury Claim
NRS 486.231 requires the headgear and says nothing at all about civil cases: no part of it makes helmet non-use evidence of negligence, of causation, or of a failure to limit your own harm. The contrast with seat belts is on the face of the code. For seat belts, the Legislature said expressly that a violation “may not be considered as negligence or as causation in any civil action” (NRS 484D.495(4)(b)). The helmet statute has no such clause either way, and Nevada’s appellate courts have not decided the question. So what follows is not the law of Nevada: it is the set of arguments an insurer or a defense lawyer may raise, and whether the argument is allowed and how much weight it gets is decided case by case.
Not wearing the required headgear violates state law, so the defense may reach for comparative negligence, the rule in NRS 41.141 that reduces an award in proportion to your own share of the fault and bars recovery only where your fault was greater than the fault of the parties you are suing, or their combined fault. That rule plainly covers how you were riding, for example your speed or your lane position. Whether it reaches a helmet at all is the part Nevada law leaves open.
Where the defense raises helmet non-compliance to dispute liability and push for a lower settlement, the arguments usually run like this, none of them settled in Nevada:
You Deliberately Increased Your Injury Risks
- Assumed clear dangers of riding unprotected
- Failed to mitigate preventable head trauma
Additional Injuries Resulted From Lack of Helmet
- Head, neck, and facial wounds enhanced
- Concussions or traumatic brain injuries more prevalent
By highlighting your non-adherence to crucial public safety statutes, the defense contends you should share in liability for injuries and bear part of that burden through reduced compensation. Nevada law does not settle whether a helmet violation carries that weight, and it never excuses the driver who caused the crash. Where several violations are alleged, the defense will argue that together they add up to a larger share of fault. For how partial fault factors into a case, see comparative negligence in Nevada.
Key Legal Defenses Citing Helmet Non-Compliance
These are arguments a defense lawyer or an insurer may put forward where a rider was not wearing the required headgear. They are positions, not rules Nevada courts have adopted:
Assumption of Risk
- Argues the plaintiff assumed all dangers voluntarily
- Contends head injuries were a foreseeable potential outcome
Failure to Mitigate Damages
- Claims the plaintiff failed to minimize preventable harms
- Asserts helmets could have greatly reduced damages
Comparative Negligence
- Alleges violations partly caused claimed damages
- Disputes full liability based on non-compliance
- Reduces damages by your own share of the fault, and bars recovery only if your fault is greater than the fault of the parties you are suing, combined (NRS 41.141), although whether a helmet figures in that share at all is unsettled
Additional Defenses
- Reckless endangerment of self and others
- Violation of duty of care to minimize risks
These arguments aim to defeat or limit liability claims citing deliberate disregard for public safety statutes. The defense also leverages them during settlement negotiations to justify lower offers, whether or not a court would let them in front of a jury.
An experienced attorney can answer these arguments, starting with the fact that no Nevada statute establishes them and we have found no published Nevada decision that does. But wearing headgear that meets Nevada’s standards on every ride keeps the argument off the table in the first place.
Employing Legal Strategies to Dispute Helmet Violations
A helmet violation is something the defense will press, and Nevada law does not settle how much weight it carries. Still, working closely with your attorney, several arguments may help limit liability and damages reductions.
Disputing Direct Causal Link to Injuries
While the defense will allege additional injuries resulted from riding helmetless, the burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate specific wounds tied directly to non-compliance. Thoroughly investigate:
- Would a helmet have prevented or reduced each injury? Expert testimony helps.
- Highlight other driver negligence as the main accident cause, regardless of helmet. Legal options, such as suing the other driver after a motorcycle accident, may still apply depending on the circumstances.
Arguing Mitigating Circumstances
If you temporarily removed your helmet because it was broken or dangerously impaired vision, highlight these extenuating factors. Emphasize you otherwise always comply with motorcycle safety laws. Document past helmet purchases.
Challenging Excessive Liability Reduction
Comparative negligence aims for liability and damages aligned with proportional fault. Argue an extreme reduction overreaches your non-compliance role.
Getting the Full Settlement Context
Insurers often use violations to justify lowering settlement offers. That first offer may not reflect the true value of your claim, especially if fault is being disputed. Knowing how to push back against an insurer’s fault determination can play a key role in reaching a fair outcome.
The best approach, however, still avoids the argument altogether. Protect your rights and safety: wear headgear that meets the standards the Nevada DMV adopts on every ride, as NRS 486.231 requires.
When the Helmet Argument Has Little to Work With
Because the argument is about specific harm a helmet is said to have prevented, there are situations where there is very little for it to attach to:
Non-Compliance Did Not Increase Specific Injuries
For instance, you may have severe leg or spinal trauma unrelated to helmet use. If medical evidence and expert testimony clearly attributes injuries solely to collision forces, lacking a helmet likely played no role. Demonstrating this isolates causation with the other motorist’s negligence.
The Violation Did Not Contribute to How the Crash Happened
Let’s say you mistakenly had a non-compliant novelty helmet. If fully licensed and the helmet itself didn’t hinder vision, vehicle control or crash dynamics in any way, it shouldn’t impact fault or compensation.
Overwhelming Evidence Favors Minimal/No Role in Liability
If other driver was grossly negligent like DUI or reckless endangerment, with crystal clear evidence and witness corroboration of your legal operation, violation impacts may be limited or defeated entirely.
Consult an Attorney Regardless of Scenario
Navigating helmet-related issues after a crash often involves legal gray areas. Having an attorney who understands Nevada’s motorcycle safety laws can help you assert your rights and present the facts of your case.
Takeaways for Pursuing a Damages Claim
Always Wear Headgear That Meets Nevada’s Standards
Wear headgear that meets Nevada’s standards whenever a motorcycle or moped is driven on a highway, which is what NRS 486.231 requires of the driver and the passenger, along with protective glasses, goggles or a face shield unless the bike has a windscreen meeting those standards. Nevada’s helmet statute does not say whether not wearing a helmet can be used to reduce a civil recovery, so ask your attorney how that question could come up in your case.
Consult Jack Bernstein’s 40+ Years of Experience
If riding without a helmet and involved in an accident, Jack Bernstein brings experience fighting excessive liability reductions tied to violations. For over 40 years, Jack has drawn on his knowledge of personal injury law, his passion for bike safety, and his negotiation experience to challenge insurer tactics that deny clients fair compensation.
Unlike large impersonal firms, Jack offers personalized legal strategies shaped by one-on-one collaboration. Past clients overwhelmingly praise Jack’s clarity explaining legal intricacies in everyday language. He wants clients fully empowered weighing options.
When you’re injured on the road, Jack’s personal mantra says it all: “Jack’s Got Your Back.”
Call today at (702) 633-3333 for your free consultation if you were in an accident riding without a helmet. Jack is ready to tackle every obstacle, so you can focus on recovery.
Spotlight Total Compliance With Other Motorcycle Laws
Emphasize you always properly license your bike, complete safety training refreshers annually, obey equipment regulations, carry insured coverage aligned with state minimums, and avoid any other traffic or substance violations. This strengthens your overall prudent duty of care profile.
While attorneys can assist if collisions occur, avoiding violations entirely is the surest path to fully protect your financial recovery rights in Nevada. Safety first, for both your health and future claim.
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
If you have been injured in an accident due to negligence, contact Jack Bernstein Injury Lawyers for a free, no obligation consultation with experienced Las Vegas accident lawyers. You will gain an advocate for every stage in the claims process, and we will pursue your claim to a resolution.
Jack Bernstein Injury Lawyers is available to help you handle your injury claim in the Las Vegas metropolitan area and beyond. Jack Bernstein and his team can offer you personalized service and legal representation after an accident.
Call us at (702) 633-3333 or contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your case.