A woman in Texas claims the Harley-Davidson helmet her
husband wore was defective and failed to protect him in a collision.
The woman’s husband died when he struck a vehicle while
trying to avoid another collision on a Texas highway in January 2009.
The widow’s lawsuit claims that he would have survived the
collision if his helmet had been properly designed. She is seeking damages for
loss of companionship, mental anguish, and loss of inheritance.
Roy V. Harley-Davidson, case no. 2010-070606, has been filed
in Harris County District Court.
It is not your place or mine to decide what is a legitimate legal complaint That is for the courts to decide. Yes the suit may seem frivilous to you and me but there are aspects of law that must be preserved for the freesom of all. The right to sue is one of them The courts may decide to let the suit continue or not but that does not mean the case should be decided by you or me with no true working knowledge of Texas law
Guns don’t kill people.
I kill people.
Yo yo yo. Word.
” “Lawyers don’t sue, clients do.”
Yeah, right… just like guns don’t kill people.”
They don’t. They just lie there quietly until somebody misuses them and calls a lawyer …
“Lawyers don’t sue, clients do.”
Yeah, right… just like guns don’t kill people.
Lawyers don’t sue, clients do. Blame the plaintiff and shaddup.
Do you remember where Mark was killed
and all the details of his death and
The thieving bastards of his estate sued
all kinds of companies.
Do you remember where the law-suit was filed?
‘Car and Driver’ had a long and in-depth article
about this approx. 25 years ago. This was during
a relatively intensive period of litigation over
product liability in the USA.
Peter Revson’s death and estate law-suit was similar.
Sadly, the lawyers won out and settlements were made.
Sad time in American legal activity.
CnD also mentioned a plaintiff against Ford. Buddy had
three times the legal BAC, was sporting the original
factory tyres on a Mustang II with 100K miles and estate claimed he was doing 140 mph. In a Mustang II!
Claimed Ford was responsible for his death.
They were not V rated.
Nadar (a lawyer) and other shysters were to blame.
I’d drive a Corvair in a heart-beat.
Funny thing? Jill Clayburg’s version of the NHTSA
later found all of Ralphie’s claims to be untrue.
All lawyers should be shot.
Larry? Ralph must just be an evil name, eh? 😉
Many years ago when Mark Donahue got killed after driving off the race course and bashing into a wooden sign with his head, his estate sued Bell helmets. After many months/years in court the suit was tossed – as have all similar suits since.
My guess is this widow is seeking a negotiated settlement with Harley who, by rights, tell her to politely go away.
“Shorty” helmet like these can pass DOT testing, which means they will at least protect your noggin assuming you hit the ground with the part of your head that is covered. It’s surely better than nothing, even if I prefer to wear something that will protect my face, too. There are still lots of 3/4 open-face helmets on the market, too, that pass various jurisdictions tests (ECE, DOT, etc, but not Snell since they only test full-face).
One hopes that H-D is smart enough not to have licensed a helmet with a bogus DOT certification. If they did, they probably deserve to lose.
Uh, that thing is a “helmet” in name only. Again, people are free to choose, but, obviously (to your average thinking person), a helmet that doesn’t cover you fully doesn’t protect you if you inconveniently hit the pavement with your face. Some people are willing to take that risk – and we know that getting out of bed in the morning is a risk.
Painfully obvious. In fact, this woman probably understands that too. If she wants to sue anybody she should sue her poor husband posthumously for his poor choice of protective gear. But, she also understands that there’s no money in that!
“Loss of inheritance”? I wonder what the story is there. Since she’s the wife, you’d guess any estate would go to her regardless. Maybe it’s based on his lost future earnings?
All the more interesting because I think Texas is a state where it’s not mandatory to wear a helmet when riding.
Looks like a pretty good helmet to me.
Id be concerned about the lack of a chin strap though.
Mind you the secure “ear clamps” are superior to last years Crazy Glue set up.
One presumes the helmet was DOT approved, and further that it probably contained the usual sticker or tag stating that it was not guaranteed to prevent injuries in all foreseeable accidents. Never mind the fact that choosing a helmet that stops at your ears and has no face protection may not be the wisest decision (although I support freedom of choice, including that to ride with no helmet at all if one so desires). This lawsuit should probably go nowheres, but one suspects there’s a good chance that H-D or whoever made the helmets for them will settle out of court.
This must be the same woman who sued McDonald’s for burning her lap with a cup of hot take-out coffee. Her husband CHOSE to wear the helmet. Harley didn’t hold a gun to his head and make him buy the stupid thing. America is the land of the free, and that includes freedom of choice to wear little, and in some states no protection on a motorcycle.