If a person is injured in a car accident, and it goes to court, is whether the person was wearing a seatbelt relevent? (IOW would not wearing seatbelt disallow the ability to collect damages?)
Is this a single vehicle crash (that is, did the person hit a tree, sign post, parked car etc)?
If this was a two+ vehicle car crash, is the injured party the person responsible for causing the crash or on the receiving end?
Not that I have an answer for you either way and I’m not sure if it makes a difference, but since it’s late and you might get people checking in during the night, they might need this info.
Also, who’s taking who to court?
If it was a single vehicle accident, I assume it’s the state/county/city vs the driver.
If it was a two car crash is it the state/county/city vs the person responsible or is one driver vs the other in a civil suit?
IOW,
Who hit who (or what)?
Who was injured?
Who is taking who to court?
But like I said, it’s possible none of this makes a difference, but I suspect it might in a civil suit, especially in a municipality with a seat belt law if it can be proven that wearing a seat belt would have made the injury less severe or non existent. For example, if I hit you, your car rolled and you were ejected and ended up losing a limb (or maybe just injuring it in a way that would fully heal) that was trapped under the car. Even then, I’d guess all it would do is reduce what you could win from me, but not get the case thrown out entirely.
Answers to your questions:
1.Two cars
2.The other person is at fault
3.The unbuckled driver instigates litigation
If I were on the jury and if it could be reasonably shown that neglecting to wear the seat belt contributed to the degree of injury to the plaintiff then this may well influence me in limiting the amount of the award applying to personal injury and/or other compensatory damages.
I agree. If not wearing a seat belt could be shown to have increased the severity of the injuries I’d be less likely to award substantial damages to the plaintiff. Even more likely if the state had a mandatory seat belt law.
Would the defendant have the burden to show the seat belt had an effect, as you wrote, or would the plaintiff need to show it didn’t? I’d lean towards the second option, but I don’t know.
A question for those of you who think it might make a difference: Do you suppose it’d make a difference because not wearing a seatbelt is illegal? Or because it’s a risky behavior?
I’m mostly curious because adults in this state are not legally required to wear seatbelts, and I can’t imagine that it’d provide much of a defense to harp on something that the victim wasn’t required by law to do anyway.
Live free AND die?
I’d expect both are needed. It’s a little hard to separate, since it’s illegal because it’s risky.
Nah, not really. We actually have fewer traffic fatalities in NH than the US average - 1.1 deaths per million miles traveled vs 1.3 deaths.
Besides, the lack of adult seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws helps keep the gene pool chlorinated. Smart people wear both (and buy car insurance, also not required) and the not so smart…don’t.
elfkin-You’re right that people who avoid helmets and seat belts do win Darwin Awards.
From speaking with various insurance companies, the question always comes up when there is any claim involving personal injury, for not just the driver, but any passengers.
For just this reason, it certainly does have influence on how much you can collect, since they can rather easily link the extent of your injuries to negligence on your part for not wearing the seatbelt (I’m not sure of other states, but in mine, it’s required).
It’s similar to how speed or negligent driving can contribute to partial fault in an otherwise non-fault accident, as well (again, depending on state).
They probably won’t tell you how much it factors into a respective settlement, but it sure does.
What you are talking about is contributory negligence. IIRC some states allow this in court and some don’t. Maybe we can get one of our resident lawyers to give us the straight dope.
Some states could consider non-use of a seatbelt under the Assumption of Risk defense, but not all. The tortfeasor certainly wouldn’t be let off the hook, but even in NH use or non-use of a seatbelt is evaluated on it’s merits when evaluating a bodily injury claim. The law (or lack of one) is secondary, at best, as general seatbelt use falls under the “prudent man” duty in tort claims.
IANAL, but I am an auto liability claims adjuster.
Even in a contributory negligence jurisdiction (a theory rapidly disappearing from US state law; most have moved to some form of comparative or modified comparative negligence), the burden would be to show that not wearing the belt was the proximate cause of injury to bar the injured party from collecting.