THE SEAT BELT DEFENSE SHOULD BE RESURRECTED UNDER PURE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

The pure form of comparative negligence in the Placek v Sterling Heights case is discussed, and it is pointed out that pre-Placek case law holding evidence of seat belt non-use inadmissible in auto negligence cases is wholly inconsistent with the doctrine of pure comparative negligence, and that such evidence should be admissible in cases where there is evidence to support causation or aggravation of injuries due to plaintiff's failure to use an available restraint system. Two cases are cited to support inadmissibility of seat belt non-use evidence: Romankewiz v Black and Placek v Sterling Heights. Other cases discussed in this article are the Bentzler v Brown case in Wisconsin, the Pritts v Lowry Trucking in Pennsylvania, Polyard v Terry in New Jersey, and Fischer v Moore in Colorado. It is noted that the extent that proof can be offered to support a finding by the jury that plaintiff's injuries were enhanced or increased by non-use, evidence of availability and non-use of seat belts should be submitted to the jury.

• Corporate Authors:

  State Bar of Michigan

  306 Townsend
  Lansing, MI  United States  48933
• Authors:
  • Sullivan, J I
• Publication Date: 1982-7

Media Info

• Pagination: p. 560-563
• Serial:
  • Michigan Bar Journal
  • Volume: 61
  • Publisher: State Bar of Michigan

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Courts; Defense; Evidence; Injuries; Laws; Manual safety belts; Negligence
• Subject Areas: Highways; Law; Safety and Human Factors; Security and Emergencies; I83: Accidents and the Human Factor;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00386824
• Record Type: Publication
• Source Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• Report/Paper Numbers: HS-036 267
• Files: HSL, TRIS, USDOT
• Created Date: Jul 30 1984 12:00AM