Rogers v. Frush

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the lack of a statute requiring the plaintiff to wear a helmet meant that there could be no negligence for that failure
• stating that the lack of a statute requiring the plaintiff to wear a helmet meant that there could be no negligence for that failure
• stating that the lack of a statute requiring tire plaintiff to wear a helmet meant that there could be no negligence for that failure
• stating that the lack of a statute requiring the plaintiff to wear a helmet meant that there could be no negligence for that failure
• rule of avoidable consequences not a bar to recovery for portion of injuries sustained because of motorcyclist’s failure to wear helmet
• rule of avoidable consequences not a bar to recovery for portion of injuries sustained because of motorcyclist's failure to wear helmet

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).