Benning V. Vermont: Case Study

Brian Dominguez

GPH-704

Public Health Ethics – Legal Analysis Benning v. Vermont

Introduction:

In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs asserted three arguments against the statue; including that the statue was contradictory to the intent of the Vermont Constitution, the statue is void for ambiguity, and the statue denies plaintiffs equal protection of the laws.1 The plaintiffs based their argument that safety and liberty are natural, inherent, and unalienable rights guaranteed by Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution.1 The article states “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have

certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.1”

The statue was previously challenged a year after its enactment in State v. Solomon. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of § 1256 against arguments that the statute exceeded the scope of the state's police power and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The Court concluded that the statue "directly related to highway safety" because an unprotected motorcycle operator could be affected by roadway hazards, temporarily lose control and become a menace to other motorists.1 The statue was deemed substantial for public health and the general welfare of the people.

In the end, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs’ arguments were insufficient and found § 1256 does not violate any provisions of the state or federal constitutions. On whether the statue violated Article 1, Chapter 1 of the Vermont Constitution, the court found that the plaintiffs’ right to pursue and obtain safety does not suggest the government is powerless to protect the safety of individuals. In addition, the Court described Article 1as the natural rights of men before they enter the social environment.1 When men enter a social surrounding, they give up a part of their natural rights and consent to laws of society for the general advantage of the public.1 The argument that the statue was void due to vagueness is futile; it clearly proscribes the failure to wear an approved helmet. The Vermont Commissioner of Motor Vehicles has provided headgear that is acceptable to wear on a motorcycle. Finally, the Court refuted the plaintiffs’ arguments that § 1256 deprives equal protection of the law. The motorcyclists are not unfairly singled out for treatment different from all other highway users. The requirement that motorcyclists have to wear protective headgear before taking public highways is a simple recognition that motorcyclists do not enjoy the physical protection furnished by the body of a car or truck.1

Florida’s role in determining the constitutionality of the helmet law:

Based on the statue of Florida’s helmet laws, the state would concede with Vermont’s ruling on this particular case.

In Title 23, Chapter 316.211 of Florida’s constitution, the law states that “A person may not operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless the person is properly wearing protective headgear securely fastened upon his or her head which complies with Federal Motorcycle Vehicle Safety Standard 218 promulgated by the United States Department of Transportation.2” The Florida statue is actually more stringent on helmet laws than Vermont’s statue. In Florida, a person cannot operate/ride a motorcycle without helmet, while in Vermont it’s only regulated while riding a motorcycle on

highways.

In addition, Article 1, Section 2 of Florida’s constitution states that “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property.3” Unlike Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Vermont Constitution, there is no mention of pursuing and obtaining safety.

Florida’s expression of police power based on Benning v. Vermont:

Florida’s expression of police power on helmet laws would be to protect the general welfare of the motorcyclists’ and those around them. In 2010, 42% of motorcyclists who were fatally injured were un-helmeted.4 Self-injury can invoke public health concern. It is no different than being required to wear a seatbelt when operating an automobile.

Florida also has an unfavorable history with motorcycle safety. In 2000, Florida repealed its universal helmet law, weakening it to mandate helmet use only for riders under the age of 21 and those with less than $10,000 of medical insurance coverage.5 Comparing the 30 months after the Florida state legislator repealed its universal helmet law with the 30 months before repeal; deaths of all riders increased by 55%; deaths of un-helmeted riders increased by 188% under the age of 21 and motorcycle crash-related hospitalizations rose more than 50%.6

In the state of Florida, the helmet law would not violate Article 1, Section 2(Basic Rights) of Florida’s Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court would find that the plaintiffs’ argument to “pursue and obtain safety” does not apply, as the language does not exist in Florida’s basic rights clause.

The plaintiffs’ argument that the statue is void due to vagueness would be unsuccessful. The Florida statue clearly states that no person can operate a motorcycle without a helmet; the law is concrete and straightforward.

In addition, the Florida Supreme Court would find the plaintiffs’ argument that the helmet law deprives equal protection of the law inapplicable. Coinciding with Vermont’s reasoning, the requirement that motorcyclists have to wear protective headgear before operating a motorcycle is a simple recognition that motorcyclists do not enjoy the physical protection furnished by the body of a car or truck.1 Motorcycles also have a higher fatality rate per unit of distance travelled when compared with automobiles.7

Fundamental Rights

There are no fundamental rights involved in the freedom to ride without a helmet. The plaintiff probably has a liberty interest in riding without a helmet; however the interest is not fundamental.8 The helmet statue would be sustained as along as it related to the achievement of a state objective. The helmet law would qualify as it is enacted for the purpose of pursuing the legitimate governmental objective of reducing serious head injuries, and the scientific research establishes that the statue is at least rationally related to the achievement of that objective.8 In addition, requiring motorcyclists to wear a helmet, did not impermissibly infringe on the motorcyclist’s freedom of religion, violate any constitutional right of privacy, and/or violate constitutionally protected freedoms of speech or expression.

Advice for the Florida Attorney General

To begin the opening argument, the Florida Attorney General should briefly explain that motorcycle crashes is a public health concern. It is a legitimate state objective to reduce the number of fatalities among motorcyclists and that there is convincing evidence to support that helmet laws decreases fatal/non-fatal injuries.

In response to the motorcyclist’s argument that wearing a helmet is an individual liberty; explain to them that mandating persons to wear a helmet before operating a motorcycle is assuring the safety and welfare of persons traveling on streets/ highways and does not violate the motorcyclists’ right of liberty. Wearing a helmet does not infringe or violate the motorcyclists’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and/or privacy. It is upon the state’s responsibility not only to safeguard the motorcyclist themselves but those surrounding them. In addition, the helmet law does not violate the motorcyclists’ right to due process. They do not enjoy the protections of an automobile or truck, therefore safety precautions has to be taken into account. The State enacted police powers with the goal of preventing injuries to motorcyclists and passengers. The helmet statue does not unlawfully discriminate against motorcyclists.

The Florida Attorney General should also emphasize to the opposition that there is substantial evidence that motorcycle helmet laws reduce deaths, injuries, and economic costs attributable to motorcycle crashes. Explain to them that 41% of motorcycle operators and 50% of motorcycle passengers who died in 2010 were not wearing a helmet in the United States.9 In addition, reference the Florida case study on the ineffectiveness of partial helmet laws to save lives. After Florida repealed its universal helmet law in 2000, deaths of all riders increased by 55%, riders under the age of 21 increased by 188% and motorcycle crash-related hospitalizations rose more than 40%.6

Explain the benefits of wearing a motorcycle helmet, and the safety features it provides. Wearing helmets that meet the Department of Transportation (DOT) standard is the single most effective means of reducing the number of people who get injured or die from motorcycle crashes.10 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) estimates that helmets saved lives of 1,544 motorcycle riders in 2010 alone.11 Having concrete evidence is the strongest claim to influence the opposition.

In addition, justify the expenditures of health care costs revolving around motorcycle crashes. It is estimated that the economic burden of injuries and deaths from motorcycle related crashes in one year totaled $12 billion.12 The lack of helmet use is one of the key factors that influence the public’s financial burden from motorcycle crashes. Un-helmeted motorcycle riders injured in a crash and admitted to hospitals face substantially higher healthcare costs than do helmeted riders; and also use more of a hospital’s critical resources.13 Traumatic-brain injury is the leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes and un-helmeted motorcycle riders are twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries from crashes. The median hospital charges for motorcycle riders hospitalized with severe traumatic brain injuries were 13 times higher than the charges for those who did not have a traumatic brain injury.13

In closing, the federal Constitution does protect citizens from government in many areas, however it does not suggest the government is powerless to protect the safety of individuals. The helmet law would not violate the fundamental rights of citizens protected under the Constitution. There is distinct and substantial evidence supporting the use of helmets when operating a motorcycle. Even if the motorcyclists ‘claim that the helmet law does more harm than good, it constitutes a proper exercise of the police powers of the State; and it is rationally related to the legislature’s express purpose of insuring the safety and welfare of persons traveling on public highways and streets. 8