An Act Prohibiting A Motorcyclist, Bicyclist Or Skateboard Rider From Filing A Cause Of Action Related To A Brain Injury Unless Such Person Was Utilizing Protective Headgear Or A Protective Helmet At The Time Of Such Injury.
Summary
HB 6505 would amend section 14-286d of the Connecticut General Statutes to bar certain personal injury claims for brain injuries brought by motorcyclists, bicyclists, or skateboard riders unless the injured person was wearing protective headgear or a helmet at the time of the injury. In practical terms, the bill creates a legal condition on the ability to file a cause of action related to a brain injury for these users of motorcycles, bicycles, and skateboards.
The proposal appears aimed at linking civil recovery to compliance with helmet use, and it would likely affect negligence and personal injury litigation involving head injuries in these activities. By conditioning access to the courts on helmet use, the bill would change the legal rights of injured riders and potentially reduce the number of claims that can be filed or pursued for brain injuries in these contexts.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend section 14-286d of the general statutes and alter Connecticut law governing civil actions for brain injuries involving motorcyclists, bicyclists, and skateboard riders. It would create a new statutory limitation on who may bring a cause of action, effectively affecting injured riders, defendants in personal injury suits, insurers, and the courts handling such claims.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history available for this bill, so no direct evidence of support or opposition is provided in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill reflects a policy preference for helmet use and for limiting legal claims when protective gear was not worn, but the surrounding legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the record provided.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely whether it is appropriate to deny or restrict access to civil remedies for brain injuries based on helmet use at the time of injury. Supporters would likely view the bill as encouraging safety and personal responsibility, while opponents may argue that it unfairly limits injured persons’ rights to sue and could bar recovery even when another party’s negligence contributed to the injury. No specific stakeholder positions are available in the provided history.