If you were riding a motorcycle and someone turned left directly into your path, you already know how fast everything changes. One moment you have the right of way. The next moment you are on the ground with injuries that will follow you for the rest of your life, and an insurance company is already looking for reasons to pay you less. This is what a motorcycle helmet medical causation case looks like from the inside, and it is exactly what happened to our client on June 7, 2012, in Orange County. A driver turned left across his path, leaving him with a severe traumatic brain injury, facial fractures, a foot injury, and a shoulder injury. In February 2015, an Orange County jury returned $16,162,429.
$16.16M
Orange County jury verdict
2.6%
Comparative fault assigned for the novelty helmet
$6.05M
Future medical care the jury awarded
On June 7, 2012, in Orange County, our client was riding his motorcycle when a driver named Regan turned left directly across his path. Left-turn crashes are among the most common causes of serious motorcycle injuries in California, because a driver turning left typically misjudges the motorcyclist's speed or does not see the motorcycle at all until it is too late. The impact was sudden and catastrophic. Our client suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, not a mild concussion but the kind that permanently changes cognitive function, personality, and the ability to work, along with facial fractures, a foot injury, and a shoulder injury. His medical care needs were projected to continue for the rest of his life.
Our client was wearing a novelty helmet at the time, one not certified by the Department of Transportation, and the defense argued this made him partly responsible for his own injuries. A DOT-certified helmet meets federal safety standards for impact absorption, while a novelty helmet may look the part but provides far less protection. The jury considered that argument carefully and assigned just 2.6% comparative fault for the novelty helmet. California requires the defense to prove the helmet actually caused or worsened the specific injury, not merely that a different helmet existed and was not worn. Biomechanics evidence at trial showed that a DOT helmet would not have prevented the facial fractures or the traumatic brain injury given the specific mechanism of the crash.
Liability for the left turn was not seriously disputed. The case turned on medical causation, on reaching the driver's employer, and on the severity of a lifelong brain injury.
Biomechanics testimony tied the actual impact mechanics to the injuries and showed that a compliant helmet would not have prevented the facial fractures or the brain injury, which held the comparative fault finding to 2.6%.
Prospect Education required its loan coordinators to drive personal vehicles to visit prospective students at home. That requirement brought the employer into the case under the vehicle-use exception to the going-and-coming rule.
The neurologist the defense retained to minimize the claim instead became one of the strongest witnesses for the severity of our client's traumatic brain injury, an outcome built on command of the medical record.
The jury credited the causation evidence, held the employer liable alongside the driver, and awarded full lifetime damages.
California's going-and-coming rule generally shields employers from liability for an employee's commute. Courts recognize an exception when that rule would be unfair. The most important exception here is the vehicle-use exception, sometimes reached through CACI 3725: when an employer requires or expects an employee to use a personal vehicle for work purposes, the employer receives a benefit from that vehicle, and that benefit comes with responsibility. Prospect Education benefited from having loan coordinators visit prospective students at home. Regan used his personal car to do that work, so the employer could not escape responsibility simply because the crash happened outside office hours. This doctrine applies across industries, including real estate, sales, home services, education, healthcare, and delivery.
In February 2015, an Orange County jury returned a verdict of $16,162,429, broken down category by category on the verdict form, with future medical care of $6,052,356 reflecting a lifetime of neurological care, rehabilitation, cognitive therapy, and support services. The jury assigned only 2.6% comparative fault for the novelty helmet. A high/low agreement in place before the verdict set a floor of $3.1 million and a ceiling of $11.1 million, and the case resolved promptly, with payment following within 30 days and no appeal. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The Homampour Law Firm handles catastrophic motorcycle and brain injury cases on a contingency fee basis, advancing the costs of the case, so clients pay nothing unless there is a recovery.
The breakdowns below cover defeating the helmet defense, proving medical causation for a brain injury, how California juries apportion comparative fault, and educating a jury with biomechanics and demonstrative evidence.
Helmet defense and comparative fault
Medical causation and brain injury proof
We try severe brain injury and catastrophic motorcycle cases as counsel or co-counsel and pay statutory referral fees.
Refer a caseA loan coordinator named Regan made a left turn and cut off our client, who was riding a motorcycle in Orange County. Our client suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, facial fractures, a foot injury, and a shoulder injury. Regan worked for Prospect Education, which required him to use his personal vehicle to visit prospective students at their homes, and that requirement made the employer liable.
In February 2015, an Orange County jury returned a verdict of $16,162,429. A high/low agreement capped the actual recovery at $11.1 million. The jury assigned 2.6% comparative fault for wearing a novelty helmet, a fraction that barely affected the overall award.
Yes, in certain situations. If the employer required or expected the employee to use a personal vehicle as part of the job, such as making sales visits or delivering materials, California law can make the employer responsible for accidents that happen during that driving under the vehicle-use exception to the going-and-coming rule.
