Plaintiff's Motions in Limine

1. Motion to exclude new opinion testimony of experts

The motion is granted. It is not opposed.

2. Motion to exclude evidence of lack of helmet

The motion is provisionally granted.

Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence that he was not wearing a bicycle helmet at the time of the accident.

Plaintiff contends the evidence is not relevant because he had no duty to wear a helmet and because defendant has not asserted the lack of helmet as an affirmative defense. Plaintiff contends the only use of the evidence is to prejudice the jury against him.

Defendant contends that the fact plaintiff was not wearing a helmet is relevant to support his expert's testimony regarding plaintiff's negligence, contributory negligence and failure to mitigate damages. Defendant also contends that his affirmative defense of contributory negligence is sufficient to encompass the lack of helmet.

Defendant is not persuasive.

A bicyclist has the duty to exercise ordinar