Warfel v. Cheney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding motorcycle rider had common-law duty to wear helmet, yet recognized that the “majority rule” was otherwise
• recognizing a common law duty to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle
• recognizing a common law duty to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle
• “An offer of proof . . . is a prerequisite to an appellate argument of admissibility of excluded evidence.”
• when evidence of helmet nonuse is relevant to the issue of damages, defendants must also produce evidence showing what portion of the injuries sustained by plaintiff was attributable to helmet nonuse
• when evidence of helmet nonuse is relevant to the issue of damages, defendants must also produce evidence showing what portion of the injuries sustained by plaintiff was attributable to helmet nonuse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).