LRB-2839/1
TNF/ARG/RPN:wlj:rs
2003 - 2004 LEGISLATURE
August 4, 2003 - Introduced by Representatives Vrakas, Gard, Suder, Kreibich,
M. Lehman, Hines, Gronemus, Musser, Weber, Albers, Pettis, Kerkman,
Kestell, Ott, Petrowski, Gunderson
and Vruwink, cosponsored by Senators
Zien, A. Lasee, Welch, Stepp, Decker, Kanavas and Lazich. Referred to
Committee on Judiciary.
AB455,1,4 1An Act to create 895.049 and 901.053 of the statutes; relating to: the reduction
2and recovery of damages and admissibility of evidence in civil actions related
3to use or nonuse of protective headgear by operators and passengers of
4motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, a person who operates or is a passenger on a motorcycle is
generally not required to wear protective headgear (a helmet), except that a person
who holds an instruction permit or is under 18 years of age and who operates or is
a passenger on a Type 1 motorcycle operated on the highway must wear a helmet.
In addition, a person may not operate a Type 1 motorcycle carrying a passenger
under 18 years of age unless the passenger wears a helmet.
Under current law, a person who operates or is a passenger on a snowmobile is
not required to wear a helmet, and a person who operates or is a passenger on an
all-terrain vehicle (ATV) is, with an exception, not required to wear a helmet. Under
this exception, a person who is under 18 years of age may not, with specified
exceptions, operate or be a passenger on an ATV unless the person wears a helmet.
Under current law, if a person is injured or killed as a result of negligence, the
person or the person's estate may recover for the injury or death if his or her causal
negligence is not greater than the causal negligence of the person from whom he or
she is trying to recover, but the amount of damages that the person may recover is
reduced in proportion to the person's causal negligence.

Also under current law, in a civil action for personal injury or property damage
resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle, a person's failure to use a safety belt
required by law does not affect the determination of causal negligence in the action
but may reduce, by not more than 15%, the person's recovery for those injuries or
damages caused by the failure to use the safety belt.
In Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (June 26, 2002), the Supreme Court held that
the failure of an adult ATV operator to wear a helmet could be considered by a jury
in apportioning negligence, as a basis for reducing recovery of damages, in a personal
injury action arising from operation of the ATV.
This bill prohibits the introduction of evidence of the use or nonuse of a helmet
by a person, other than a person required to wear a helmet, who operates or is a
passenger on a motorcycle, ATV, or snowmobile, on or off a highway, in any civil
action for personal injury or property damage. The bill, however, specifically allows
the introduction of such evidence in cases against the manufacturer or producer of
a motorcycle helmet for any alleged defect of deficiency in the helmet's design or
manufacture or in cases solely on the issue of whether a helmet contributed to the
personal injury or property damage suffered by another person.
Also under this bill, the failure by a person who operates or is a passenger on
a motorcycle, ATV, or snowmobile, on or off a highway, to use a helmet does not reduce
recovery for injuries or damages by the person or the person's legal estate in any civil
action. The bill does not apply to recovery by any person required to use a helmet.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
AB455, s. 1 1Section 1. 895.049 of the statutes is created to read:
AB455,2,9 2895.049 Recovery by a person who fails to use protective headgear
3while operating certain motor vehicles.
Notwithstanding s. 895.045, failure by
4a person who operates or is a passenger on a motorcycle, as defined in s. 340.01 (32),
5an all-terrain vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (2g), or a snowmobile, as defined in s.
6340.01 (58a), on or off a highway, to use protective headgear shall not reduce recovery
7for injuries or damages by the person or the person's legal representative in any civil
8action. This section does not apply to any person required to wear protective
9headgear under s. 23.33 (3g) or 347.485 (1).
AB455, s. 2 10Section 2. 901.053 of the statutes is created to read:
AB455,3,13
1901.053 Admissibility of evidence relating to use of protective
2headgear while operating certain motor vehicles.
Evidence of use or nonuse
3of protective headgear by a person, other than a person required to wear protective
4headgear under s. 23.33 (3g) or 347.485 (1), who operates or is a passenger on a
5motorcycle, as defined in s. 340.01 (32), an all-terrain vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01
6(2g), or a snowmobile, as defined in s. 340.01 (58a), on or off a highway, is not
7admissible in any civil action for personal injury or property damage. This section
8does not apply to the introduction of such evidence in a civil action against the
9manufacturer or producer of the protective headgear arising out of any alleged
10deficiency or defect in the design or manufacture of the protective headgear or, with
11respect to such use of protective headgear, in a civil action on the sole issue of whether
12the protective headgear contributed to the personal injury or property damage
13incurred by another person.
AB455, s. 3 14Section 3. Initial applicability.
AB455,3,1615 (1) This act first applies to actions commenced on the effective date of this
16subsection.
AB455,3,1717 (End)
Loading...
Loading...