This is the testimony given by Lawyer Larry Katkowski from Detroit. He has been representing Abate members in helmet cases since the 1980's. I know because I was one of the first. Not trying to discourage anyone one way or the other, just sharing the knowlege of a man whom I respect and feel is on top of the helmet issue.
Here is the testimony that I gave to the House Transportation Committee the day before the vote:
I am a trial lawyer from Bingham Farms, Michigan specializing in motorcycle and ORV litigation statewide and nationally. I have investigated more motorcycle accidents than probably anyone in the country and I am also a certified motorcycle safety instructor in southeast Michigan. I have dealt with the Michigan motorcycle helmet law since the mid-1970s. I have also engaged in litigation involving motorcycle helmets and their relationship to head injuries for many years and am personally acquainted with most of the experts on the subject in the United States. I have personally observed testing of helmets at DOT approved laboratories and participated in many seminars on the subject.
The perspective that I wish to bring to the hearing this morning is one of the trial lawyer being confronted with proving or disproving whether a head injury could have been prevented by a DOT “approved” helmet. The subject generally comes up in two contexts:
1. A helmeted rider is involved in a crash and the helmet fails. If the helmet had not failed, would the rider have survived in a non-vegetative state?
OR
2. A rider wearing no helmet or one which does not meet DOT standards is involved in an accident and dies or suffers a head injury which places him in a permanent vegetative state. If the rider had been wearing a DOT “approved” helmet, would he have suffered the injury?
When confronted with these questions I and every other trial lawyer like me, plaintiff or defense, takes the facts to an expert on helmets. The facts usually consist of a police accident report, a reconstruction of the accident to give the attorneys the speed of the collision, the speed of the head of the rider with the impacted surface, the nature of the impacted surface, the medical records and/or autopsy reports and the helmet itself.
In every single case that I have ever had where the impact was 35 mph or over every expert, plaintiff or defense, have told me that a helmet would not have prevented the closed head injury or fracture which caused the death or the injury of the rider.
In 95% of all cases where the impact was 25 mph or over the case is rejected by the expert because, even though the impact was to the head, the helmet still could not have prevented same because a helmet cannot prevent injury to such places as the cerebellum, the facial areas, and cannot in any way prevent basilar skull fractures.
The upshot is that I, as a seasoned trial lawyer with a particular expertise in motorcycle products in cluding helmets, only can accept one in fifty of all motorcycle helmet cases referred to me involving a failed helmet, because I cannot obtain the testimony of a reputable expert who will testify that the helmet would have prevented the injury in that particular case.
To close my testimony I wish to relate to you the story of Tom Kanthak who was involved in a motorcycle crash in Battle Creek in August 1997 when a car turned left in front of his motorcycle which was traveling at about 25 mph at the time. Tom was wearing a DOT “approved” full face helmet which had been appropriately sized to his head. Upon the collision Tom flew into the air over the car, did a somersault, and landed on his shoulder blade, skidding along the pavement. As he skidded his helmet, which was fully fastened, rotated forward off of his head and his unhelmeted head struck the curb causing severe skull fractures from which Mr. Kanthak succumbed 12 hours later.
Experts on both sides agreed that the helmet was defectively designed and should not have come off as it did. But the helmet manufacturer, a well-known Canadian manufacturer, in a desperate move, engaged the services of L. J. Dragovic, M.D. , the Medical Examiner of Oakland County and a nationally prominent forensic pathologist. Dr. Dragovic submitted a which stated, in part,
As a result of being airborne upon the collision of his motorcycle with the automobile the back of Mr. Kanthak’s head impacted an unyielding surface resulting in brain lag within his skull. This phenomenon [known as “coup counter-coup”] is a physical characteristic of a human head in motion, and is in effect with or without ANY helmet on the head.
*********************************
While Mr. Kanthak sustained a non-displaced fracture of the occipital bone which was an integral part of the injury pattern, it was not the fracture lines in the bone of the skull that caused his death; rather, it was the severe brain swelling resulting from the subdural bleeding and the contre-coup contusions in the front part of the brain that caused his demise.
The described mechanism is invariably present in this type of head trauma and is irrelevant of [sic] presence of a helmet on the head.
In other words, the helmet manufacturer as its ultimate defense, stated that it doesnÂ’t work!
Thank you very much.