In Nabors v. Romero, a case arising from an auto collision, the Supreme Court held that:
relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seat belts, and relevant evidence of a plaintiff’s pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct generally, is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility under our proportionate-responsibility statute, provided that the plaintiff’s conduct caused or was a cause of his damages.1
This holding effectively overturns a forty-year precedent set in Carnation v. Wong,2 that severely limited the admissibility of evidence regarding seat belt use decided in 1974.
The 2003 repeal of a statute codifying the Carnation holding, as well as the adoption of a comparative negligence standard, has prompted this decision.3 Because driving is an inherently dangerous activity, and law requires seat belts, the lack of wearing one can be a comparatively negligent action that has been said not to mitigate the injuries possible from such an accident.4 By enacting seat belt laws, the legislature has required motorists to anticipate the negligence of others.5
The use or non-use of a seat belt has never been held to be the cause of an accident, but can be specifically linked to have exacerbated injuries in a number of vehicular collisions6., (emphasis added). Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §33.011(4), the fact-finder is directed to assign responsibility to plaintiffs who cause “in any way” personal injury or death, and holds plaintiffs accountable for “causing or contributing to cause in any way the harm for which recovery is sought.”7 The court held that there are no restrictions on assigning responsibilities to a plaintiff as long as it can be shown that the plaintiff’s conduct “caused or contributed to cause” his personal injury.8
Seat belt evidence is only admissible if such evidence is found to be relevant.9 Relevance is established by the trial court, which is instructed to do so outside of the presence of the jury. The court also states that expert testimony will, in most cases, be required to establish relevance. This evidence is subject to objection and exclusion under Rule 403. In reference to constructing a jury charge, the court refers to §33.003(a). A fact-finder may consider relevant evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt as a “negligent act or omission” or as a violation of “an applicable legal standard.”10 This applies only when the plaintiff was personally in violation of the seat belt laws.
Because adult drivers are legally responsible for the passengers 17 years of age and younger being properly restrained, the fact-finder may consider whether the plaintiff was negligent under an applicable standard of reasonable care. A minor with passengers is still held to the standard of care that would be exercised by an “ordinarily prudent child of the same age, intelligence, experience and capacity under the same or similar circumstances.”11 The jury may also apportion third-party responsibility to the person who has the burden to properly restrain the child. For the above reasons, and with the stated restrictions, the Supreme Court now holds that, subject to the proper proffer by expert testimony, relevant evidence of use or non-use of seat belts in now admissible.
Written by:
Lyndsey Mott
Watts Guerra, LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Office: (210)447-0500
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
1 Nabors Well Services, Ltd. f/k/a Pool Company Texas, Ltd. et al. v. Asuncion Romero, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Aydee Romero et at. Case No. 13-0136 at 8 (Tx. Feb. 13, 2015).
2 Carnation v. Wong, 516 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. 1974)
3 Nabors, Case No. 13-0136 at 1.
4 See id., at 3.
5 Id., at 7.
6 Id
7 Id.
8 Nabors, Case No. 13-0136 at 4.
9 Id., at 6.
10 Id.
