|
Abstract
|
The question of whether a plaintiff in an automobile personal
injury action should be barred from recovery or have his damages reduced because he failed to make use of available automotive seat belts has been under consideration for less than a decade. Despite the recent origin of the "seat belt defense," a good deal of attention has been given to the topic in law reviews and other legal periodicals. The nature and elements of the defense were fully explained in a Defense Research Institute monograph on the subject.3 However, some misconceptions as to the status of the case law construing it appear to have developed since the original monograph was published. The purpose of this article is to analyze the case law and re-examine the nature and elements of the seat belt defense as they relate to the cases.
It should be noted that the general term "seat belt" refers to many restraint devices other than the familiar lap belt. The term as used herein includes the shoulder strap-lap belt combination, which is standard on newer vehicles, as well as such less frequently used devices as the harness type of restraint. The seat belt defense is equally applicable to all automobile restraint devices currently available, as well as those which may be developed in the future.
Thirty-six reported decisions have been found in which the defense was considered, but these were concerned with the law of only twenty- three jurisdictions. Therefore, at least as far as "appellate" courts are concerned, the seat belt defense has not been considered in over one- half of the jurisdictions. The highest appellate courts of only five states and one Canadian province have been called upon to consider the defense with three of these approving it, two rejecting it, and one failing to consider its merits due to other factors involved in the case...
Language: en |