Seat Belt Defense: Admit Or Not To Admit

The seat belt defense argument says that if you do not buckle up you contributed to the seriousness of your injuries and hence your compensation can be reduced. The issue is controversial and States are split on whether it should be admitted as evidence or not. For the lay person this may look like this: Mr. Jones gets rear-ended while not wearing the seat belt, which is required by law. The result of not wearing the belt is more serious injury than had the belt been properly worn. Mr. Jones gets fined $50 for traffic violation, yet receives $150,000 in damages for his injuries.

Arguments for and against are plenty. Here are some examples from the group that argues that the seat belt defense is inadmissible:

Not wearing the belt did not cause the accident. When it comes to traffic safety, it matters little what and who caused the accident. What really matters is who was in a position to avoid the accident or to minimize the damages. Ask yourself the question: would you rather be right or accident free?

Damages are mitigated after the accident. Doing anything after an accident may not do any good especially if it resulted in a serious injury or wrongful death. Laws cannot simply be defined, they need to be interpreted and applied to better serve society. That is, damages should be mitigated before, during and after the accident, or put it in simple English: prevention is worth a ton of cure!

Should not have to anticipate the negligence of others. Unfortunately, you should and must. Even traffic laws clearly say that you have to drive with caution and even if you have the green light, you still have to approach the intersection with an eye on the other road. With all the gadgets people use in their cars, e.g. texting an driving, the only way you can drive is defensively!

Assessing damages had the seat belt been worn is guess work. Assessing intangible and punitive damages in nothing but guess work, yet they may form the majority of the compensation. Adding up the hospital charges requires no court, the real art is to determine how much pain and suffering is worth.

The list goes on with all sorts of arguments that try to punch holes in the case of the other lawyer. Now some arguments for the use, and hence the admission of the seat belt:

It is the law. Either enforce it or eliminate it. Wearing the seat belt is a safety issue more than a traffic issue. Issuing a ticket for traffic violation and then awarding money for damages sends a mixed signal. If this is a good law, then it must be supported by injury laws in as much as by traffic laws.

You are safer inside the car. You are 25-times more likely to get killed if thrown out of the car. You are much safer inside the car than flying out of the car and landing on a rock.

The passengers are safer restrained. Lots of injuries are caused by people turning into projectiles inside the car during a collision. Imagine this: the mother sitting next to her baby in a van not wearing the seat belt. The van is hit by a truck from the side and the mother gets thrown on top of her baby...

Remain conscious. In a collision you may bump your head and loose consciousness and hence you may not be able to assist others or escape from a burning or submerged vehicle.

Does wearing the seat belt have side effects? You bet it does. In a collision you can get injured by the seat belt suffering damages as mild as bruises and as serious as a whiplash. The real question is: are we better off with the seat belt properly used or the side effects outweigh its effectiveness? If the seat belt is ineffective, then the laws must be eliminated and wearing the belt should be optional. If it is effective, then the laws must be supported at all levels and consistency across various laws must be achieved.

Comments? Questions? Email Here

© HowtoAdvice.com

How to Advice .com