Understanding the Affirmative Defense of Failure to Wear a Seat Belt in Personal Injury Cases

In personal injury litigation, defendants sometimes invoke the affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt. This defense asserts that the plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to, or even caused, the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. To successfully assert this defense, the defendant must prove four essential elements:

Availability of a Working Seat Belt: The defendant must establish that a functioning seat belt was available in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

Reasonable Use Expected: The defendant must demonstrate that a reasonably careful person in the plaintiff’s situation would have used the available seat belt. This analysis may consider the specific language of Vehicle Code section 27315, which outlines the legal expectation for persons 16 years or older.

Plaintiff’s Failure to Wear the Seat Belt: Evidence must show that the plaintiff did not, in fact, wear the seat belt provided.

Causation: Finally, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff’s injuries would have been avoided or would have been less severe if the seat belt had been used.

This defense is grounded in the notion that a plaintiff’s failure to take reasonable precautions—such as wearing a seat belt—can limit or reduce recovery for injuries that might otherwise have been mitigated.

The seminal case Franklin v. Gibson (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 340, 343 [188 Cal.Rptr. 23] sets forth the dual issues that a defendant must prove. First, that a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiff’s position should have worn the seat belt; and second, that the plaintiff’s failure to do so materially affected the extent of the injuries sustained. Similarly, Truman v. Vargas (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 976, 983 [80 Cal.Rptr.373] underscores that expert testimony may be necessary to distinguish between injuries that were unavoidable and those that could have been prevented—or at least lessened—if the seat belt had been worn.

In Housley v. Godinez (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 737, 747 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 111], the court approved jury instructions that explicitly address the seat belt defense. These instructions remind the jury that even though the defendant may assert this affirmative defense, the ultimate determination of negligence must account for whether, in the exercise of ordinary care, the plaintiff should have worn the seat belt. The court noted that expert testimony is pivotal in assessing the nature and extent of the injuries that could have been mitigated by seat belt use. The case further clarifies that the existence of Vehicle Code section 27315 does not automatically negate liability; rather, it provides a framework for the jury to weigh the comparative negligence of the plaintiff.

Moreover, in Hardison v. Bushnell (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 22, 28 [22 Cal.Rptr.2d 106], evidence was presented indicating that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt contributed to the severity of the injuries. The court emphasized that the foreseeability of injury, rather than the precise degree of injury, is key in determining causation. This principle is echoed in Lara v. Nevitt (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 454, 458-459 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 865], where the court noted that while expert testimony is not always required to prove that failing to use a seat belt may cause injury, such testimony can help differentiate between injuries that were inherent in the collision and those that might have been prevented by the use of a seat belt.

It is important to note that the affirmative defense based on failure to wear a seat belt is not predicated on a violation of a Vehicle Code provision per se, nor is it negated by any exemption contained within the statute. Instead, it is a defense that relies on demonstrating comparative negligence—the idea that the plaintiff’s own failure to exercise reasonable care contributed to the harm suffered.

Secondary sources such as the California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed., § 4.71-4.72) and the works by Levy et al. in California Torts, Ch. 20, Motor Vehicles, § 20.05 further elucidate how this defense operates within the broader context of negligence law. These sources emphasize that the seat belt defense is a tool for apportioning fault rather than completely absolving the defendant of liability.

In summary, the affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt requires a careful factual analysis and presentation of evidence regarding the availability of a working seat belt, the expected behavior of a reasonably careful person, the plaintiff’s actual actions, and the causal relationship between the lack of seat belt use and the injuries sustained. By understanding and effectively employing this defense, defendants aim to mitigate their liability, while courts carefully consider these factors to ensure a fair allocation of responsibility between the parties involved.

Understanding these elements is crucial not only for defendants seeking to assert this defense but also for plaintiffs who must be prepared to counter it with evidence and expert testimony. As illustrated by cases such as Franklin v. Gibson, Truman v. Vargas, Housley v. Godinez, Hardison v. Bushnell, and Lara v. Nevitt, the seat belt defense remains a significant aspect of personal injury litigation in California, reflecting the nuanced interplay between statutory mandates and the principles of comparative negligence.

Southern California Personal Injury Law: Trusted Personal Injury Law Firm

At Southern California Personal Injury Law, we take a modern, client-focused approach to personal injury cases, positioning ourselves as pioneers in the Southern California personal injury legal landscape. Our dedicated personal injury attorneys prioritize your goals, tailoring representation to meet your unique needs and maximize your recovery.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to negligence--whether it be a car accident, slip and fall, elder abuse, workplace injury, or more--we're here to help. Contact Southern California Personal Injury Law today for a free, no-obligation case evaluation at (949) 933-1973.

Don't wait—delays can impact your case and potential compensation. Reach out now to protect your rights and get the legal support you deserve.