Normally, the lack of a motorcycle endorsement (or driver’s license) is generally NOT admissible evidence of negligence, unless there is some evidence of a causal connection between the lack of the endorsement and the injury/collision. Specifically, the Indiana Courts assert, “there must also be some evidence of a causal connection between the lack of license/endorsement and the injury. The violation of a statutory duty is not actionable negligence, unless it is also the proximate cause of the injury… Unless a causal connection between the injuries and the failure to have a license is shown, the lack of a license is immaterial.” This principle often applies to the lack of a driver’s license as well, and the logic is likely extended to the lack of a specific endorsement. The admissibility would likely depend on the specific facts of the case, as the judge has discretion.
These principles were explicitly articulated and affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals in Nesvig v. Town of Porter, 668 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). In Nesvig, the court addressed the exclusion of evidence regarding the lack of a commercial driver’s license (CDL). In affirming the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court clearly stated the controlling rule: (1) The violation of a statutory duty is not actionable negligence unless it is also the proximate cause of the injury; and (2) Absent some evidence of a causal connection between the lack of license and the injury, evidence of the lack of license is immaterial.