SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Harv. Law Rev. 1968; 82(2): 469-472.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1968, Harvard Law Review Association)

DOI

10.2307/1339234

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The American Motorcycle Association sought a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of a Michigan statute requiring motorcyclists and riders to wear crash helmets. The trial court dismissed the case by summary judgment and appeal was taken to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Held, reversed. The helmet requirement is unconstitutional because it bears no relationship to the general welfare but merely protects individuals from them- selves. This restriction upon liberty constitutes a denial of due process.

The court dealt only briefly with the state's argument that the helmet requirement protected not cyclists alone, but all users of the highway. A helmet-less cyclist might be hit with flying insects, stones, and similar objects, lose control of his vehicle, and perhaps collide with others. The court characterized such arguments as "strained",and asserted that the true purpose of the statute was to protect cyclists from cranial injuries. The court also suggested, without citing evidence, that the requirement of a windshield, which it apparently regarded as less burdensome, would have served to protect cyclists from flying objects.

The court virtually ignored the harms to society generally which follow the loss or injury of an individual. It summarily dismissed, as leading to "paternalism,"the argument that the state has an interest in the "viability" of its citizens. But certainly the injury of an individual can cause social harm. A severely maimed rider may exhaust his resources and be forced to rely on a state subsidy. If the failure to wear a helmet proves fatal, dependents of the cyclist may be left as wards of the state. Friends and family of the cyclist will suffer emotionally if he is injured or killed."' And the state is weakened if any part of it becomes permanently less productive. Thus, apparently legitimate objects of state legislative concern would have to be fore- gone if, as a general matter, statutes were to be invalidated on the ground that their sole purpose is to prevent individuals from harming themselves.

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print