Now, if all of the states would mandate that defendants can introduce, and the jury must consider, evidence that failure to wear an available and working seatbelt (or wilful disabling or removal of a seatbelt) that results in the injuries claimed is negligence, and that the jury must reduce any verdict by that amount that the failure caused or contributed to the injury.
I agree to an extent. I don\’t think this should be the logical \”next\” step…I think it should be the ONLY step.
Don\’t mandate seatbelt use. You shouldn\’t legislate common sense or what are, for all intents and purposes, personal choices.
But besides the obvious safety benefits in this case, people should ultimately be responsible for their own actions. If wearing a seatbelt would have reduced a serious injury by x%, any damages awarded to the injured person should be calculated according to the contributory negligence factor.
I don\’t mind the seatbelt law being a secondary law, where it can only be enforced as a result of being stopped for something else. However, making the seatbelt law a primary offense and having officers pull people over for only that purpose is a wasteful use of time for something that should be construed as common sense.
There are much greater crimes that police officers should be paying attention to than whether someone uses a seatbelt or not.
The problem with your argument TXGuru is that a specific % can not be proved in a court of law. You could have an \”expert\” say a seatbelt could have reduced it by 30%, but my \”expert\” may say it would have only reduced it by 5%. That would cost more in legal fees to prove than it would be worth.
Sorry, Swede, but I can\’t agree on the primary vs. secondary issue. There is a whole butt-load of laws that deal with what should otherwise be common sense; but if there wasn\’t enforcement, people would get hurt.
Besides, having spent 14+ years in law enforcement, assigned to the traffic detail most of the time, being able to write seat-belt tickets sure would have helped me fill my quota (Ha! Ha! just kidding. I had no quota; I could write as many tickets as I wanted).
I also can\’t agree that assigning a percentage is difficult and not cost effective. At a trial in one state that allowed such a calculation, I actually saw the jury, without the help of any expert for the defense, figure out that had the \”negligence free\” passenger been wearing his seatbelt/shoulder harness, he would not have gone through the windshield. Since the claim was for wrongful death, and the jury concluded the death was due to failure to wear the seatbelt, they awarded no damages.
The case settled for a nominal amount because neither side wanted to risk an appeal, but it was certainly worth the effort.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Now, if all of the states would mandate that defendants can introduce, and the jury must consider, evidence that failure to wear an available and working seatbelt (or wilful disabling or removal of a seatbelt) that results in the injuries claimed is negligence, and that the jury must reduce any verdict by that amount that the failure caused or contributed to the injury.
That\’s the logical next step.
I agree to an extent. I don\’t think this should be the logical \”next\” step…I think it should be the ONLY step.
Don\’t mandate seatbelt use. You shouldn\’t legislate common sense or what are, for all intents and purposes, personal choices.
But besides the obvious safety benefits in this case, people should ultimately be responsible for their own actions. If wearing a seatbelt would have reduced a serious injury by x%, any damages awarded to the injured person should be calculated according to the contributory negligence factor.
I don\’t mind the seatbelt law being a secondary law, where it can only be enforced as a result of being stopped for something else. However, making the seatbelt law a primary offense and having officers pull people over for only that purpose is a wasteful use of time for something that should be construed as common sense.
There are much greater crimes that police officers should be paying attention to than whether someone uses a seatbelt or not.
The problem with your argument TXGuru is that a specific % can not be proved in a court of law. You could have an \”expert\” say a seatbelt could have reduced it by 30%, but my \”expert\” may say it would have only reduced it by 5%. That would cost more in legal fees to prove than it would be worth.
Sorry, Swede, but I can\’t agree on the primary vs. secondary issue. There is a whole butt-load of laws that deal with what should otherwise be common sense; but if there wasn\’t enforcement, people would get hurt.
Besides, having spent 14+ years in law enforcement, assigned to the traffic detail most of the time, being able to write seat-belt tickets sure would have helped me fill my quota (Ha! Ha! just kidding. I had no quota; I could write as many tickets as I wanted).
I also can\’t agree that assigning a percentage is difficult and not cost effective. At a trial in one state that allowed such a calculation, I actually saw the jury, without the help of any expert for the defense, figure out that had the \”negligence free\” passenger been wearing his seatbelt/shoulder harness, he would not have gone through the windshield. Since the claim was for wrongful death, and the jury concluded the death was due to failure to wear the seatbelt, they awarded no damages.
The case settled for a nominal amount because neither side wanted to risk an appeal, but it was certainly worth the effort.