Missouri's motorcycle helmet law is more limited than many people realize — and insurance companies routinely exploit confusion about it to deny or reduce claims. Whether you were wearing a helmet or not, you may have the right to recover compensation after a motorcycle crash caused by another driver's negligence. Bur Oak Injury Law handles motorcycle accident claims across Columbia and central Missouri. Attorney Chris Miller handles every case personally.
Understanding how Missouri's helmet law interacts with comparative fault can make a significant difference in your recovery. Call (573) 499-0200 for a free consultation. No fee unless we win.
When you're dealing with the aftermath of a motorcycle crash — medical bills, lost income, an insurance adjuster already trying to minimize your claim — the last thing you need is a law firm that hands your case off to an associate or a paralegal. At Bur Oak Injury Law, attorney Chris Miller personally handles every motorcycle accident case from the first call through resolution. No handoffs. No surprises.
Insurance companies know that motorcycle riders face an uphill battle when it comes to public perception and helmet arguments. Adjusters are trained to use any ambiguity in Missouri's helmet law against you. Chris Miller knows these tactics and how to counter them. He has argued before Missouri's highest court and brings that same level of preparation to every claim he handles across central Missouri.
Read what our clients say on our testimonials page.
Missouri's helmet law at §302.016 RSMo covers a narrower population than most riders — and insurers know it. Because riders 26 and older who have held a valid motorcycle license for more than one year are not legally required to wear a helmet, comparative fault arguments based solely on helmet non-use have limited traction in many cases. That does not stop insurance adjusters from raising them. When head or brain injuries are part of the claim, expect the insurer to argue that helmet non-use worsened those specific injuries — even when the primary cause of injury was an impact that no helmet would have prevented.
Missouri's pure comparative fault rule under §537.765 RSMo means that even a successful helmet argument by the insurer only reduces your damages proportionally — it does not eliminate your right to recover. A rider who is found 20% at fault for their head injuries due to not wearing a helmet still recovers 80% of total damages. An experienced motorcycle accident attorney can challenge the causal link between helmet non-use and the specific injuries claimed, often reducing or eliminating any comparative fault reduction.
Not all motorcycle accident cases involving helmet use — or non-use — are treated the same way. Where you fall under Missouri's helmet law makes a significant difference in how the insurance company will approach your claim and how an attorney should respond.
Riders 26 and older with more than one year of motorcycle license experience are not legally required to wear a helmet. Choosing not to does not bar recovery — comparative fault arguments apply only to injury types where helmet use could plausibly have made a difference.
If you were under 26 or in your first year with a motorcycle license and chose not to wear a helmet, comparative fault arguments are stronger. Legal representation matters most in these cases — an attorney can still challenge causation and minimize the fault percentage assigned.
If your helmet failed to perform as designed during the crash, product liability claims against the manufacturer may be available in addition to claims against the at-fault driver. These are complex cases involving engineering and safety standards experts.
Even with a helmet, traumatic brain injuries are common in motorcycle crashes. We document the full medical and economic impact of these serious injuries — including future care costs, cognitive effects, and lost earning capacity — to build the strongest possible claim.
Missouri's pure comparative fault rule under §537.765 RSMo means you can recover damages even if you share some fault for the accident or your injuries — your award is reduced by your percentage of fault, not eliminated. When insurers raise helmet arguments, they are trying to increase your assigned fault percentage to reduce what they owe. Experienced legal representation directly counters these efforts.
Past and future medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, motorcycle repair or replacement, and other out-of-pocket costs directly caused by the crash. For serious injuries like traumatic brain injury or spinal damage, future medical costs can represent the largest share of total damages.
Pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and — in cases of severe or permanent injury — disfigurement or disability. These damages are not capped in Missouri personal injury cases and can be substantial in serious motorcycle crash claims.
When a motorcycle accident causes death, Missouri's wrongful death statute (§537.080 RSMo) allows surviving family members to recover funeral and burial costs, loss of financial support, loss of consortium, and other damages. Comparative fault rules still apply — helmet non-use by the deceased may be raised, but does not eliminate the family's right to recover.
In cases involving drunk driving, extreme recklessness, or deliberate disregard for safety, Missouri courts may award punitive damages above and beyond compensatory damages. These require clear and convincing evidence of the defendant's culpable mental state.
Chris Miller personally handles every step — from the first call through resolution. No handoffs to associates or paralegals.
Missouri's helmet law at §302.016 RSMo requires helmets for riders under 26 and for all riders in their first year with a motorcycle license. Riders who meet the age and experience thresholds ride lawfully without a helmet. Insurance companies frequently misrepresent this law to suggest that any unhelmeted rider was "at fault" for their own injuries — a claim that overstates what the statute actually says and how comparative fault applies.
Missouri's comparative fault system under §537.765 RSMo means that even if a court finds you partially at fault for your injuries — for example, by not wearing a helmet — you can still recover. Your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. A 20% reduction is far better than receiving nothing, and experienced legal representation can often challenge or minimize those fault percentages by attacking the causal link between helmet non-use and the specific injuries sustained in the crash.
Personal injury claims must generally be filed within five years of the crash under §516.120 RSMo. Wrongful death claims carry a three-year window. Call Bur Oak Injury Law at (573) 499-0200 for a free consultation.
No fee unless we win. One attorney handles your case from the first call through resolution.