Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Eitel

Supreme Court of Florida
227 So. 2d 489 (1969)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state legislature, under its police power, may constitutionally require motorcyclists to wear protective helmets and eyewear for their own safety. Such a requirement is a valid exercise of state power because society has an interest in preserving the lives of its citizens and mitigating the public burdens associated with traffic injuries.


Facts:

  • The Florida legislature enacted a statute, § 317.981, requiring individuals operating a motorcycle to wear protective headgear and eyewear.
  • The stated purpose of the headgear requirement was to protect the cyclist from craniocerebral injury, which caused the vast majority of motorcycle fatalities.
  • The purpose of the eyewear requirement was to protect the cyclist's vision from airborne debris, which could cause the cyclist to lose control and endanger others.
  • Thomas E. Eitel and Clyde L. Thompson operated motorcycles on Florida's public highways.
  • Eitel and Thompson were found to be operating their motorcycles without the protective helmet and eyewear mandated by the statute.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Florida brought charges against Thomas E. Eitel and Clyde L. Thompson in a state trial court for violating the motorcycle helmet and eyewear law.
  • The trial judge ruled that the statute was unconstitutional.
  • The State of Florida, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of Florida.
  • Thomas E. Eitel and Clyde L. Thompson are the appellees in the appeal before the Supreme Court of Florida.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a state law requiring motorcyclists to wear protective helmets and eyewear violate a motorcyclist's constitutional right to be let alone?


Opinions:

Majority - Mann, Robert T., District Court Judge

No. The state law requiring protective gear for motorcyclists does not violate a constitutional right. The legislature may impose a minimal inconvenience on an individual when it affords effective protection against a significant possibility of grave or fatal injury. The court reasoned that while individuals have a right to be let alone, no person is an entirely isolated being. The consequences of a motorcyclist's serious injury extend beyond the individual to their family and to society at large, which bears the cost of emergency services, medical care, and public assistance. Therefore, the state's interest in preventing these public burdens and preserving the life and health of its citizens justifies the safety requirement.



Analysis:

This case is significant for its broad interpretation of the state's police power, extending it to the protection of individuals from their own actions. The court explicitly rejected the argument that such paternalistic laws infringe on fundamental liberty, instead adopting the view that self-harm has public consequences. This decision provided a key precedent for upholding other public safety regulations, such as mandatory seatbelt laws, by establishing that the state's interest in public health, safety, and economic welfare can outweigh an individual's claim to personal autonomy in high-risk activities.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Eitel (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"