Peter Hungerford-Welch, associate dean, The City Law School, City University London. W www.city.ac.uk/law
As the wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances, it must follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence would wear one, no matter whether on a long or a short trip or whether on quiet suburban roads or a busy main road. Th e observations of Lord Denning MR in Froom v Butcher [1975] 3 All ER 520 apply to the wearing of helmets by cyclists. It does not matter that there is no legal compulsion for cyclists to wear helmets. Th ere can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury. That said, the burden is on the defendant to prove: (i) that the claimant failed to take ordinary care of himself, ie to take such care as a reasonable man would take for his own safety by not wearing a helmet), and (ii) that his failure was a contributory cause of the damage. NLJ
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
