How To Prove A California Failure to Wear A Seat belt Defense

 

How To Prove A California Failure to Wear A Seat belt Defense

 

In California, a defense of Failure to Wear A Seat belt is defined as:

Failure on the part of a plaintiff, accident victim, to wear a seatbelt can be used as a defense to reduce an award to the plaintiff in a personal injury case involving an automobile.

It simply means:

A defendant can reduce the cost he owes for a car accident by claiming that the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt.

There are 4 elements of the defense:

  • Element 1. A working seat belt was available to the plaintiff. A working seat belt was accessible to the plaintiff, meaning they had the option to buckle up for safety, which is important in determining if their failure to wear it contributed to their injuries in a legal case.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * A properly functioning seat belt was installed in the plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident.
    * The plaintiff was informed about the availability and proper use of the seat belt during the vehicle’s safety briefing.
    * Witnesses observed the seat belt in the plaintiff’s vehicle being in good condition prior to the incident.
    * The vehicle’s owner manual clearly stated the importance of wearing a seat belt for safety.
    * The plaintiff had previously used the seat belt without issue on multiple occasions before the accident.

  • Element 2. A reasonably careful person in the plaintiff’s position would have used the seat belt. A reasonably careful person in the same situation as the plaintiff would have buckled up, meaning that if they had worn a seat belt, they might have avoided or reduced their injuries in the accident.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was aware of the risks associated with not wearing a seat belt, having previously received safety education on the matter.
    * The plaintiff had a history of wearing a seat belt in all previous vehicle trips, indicating a pattern of safe behavior.
    * The vehicle involved in the accident was equipped with functioning seat belts, which were easily accessible to the plaintiff.
    * The plaintiff was traveling at a high speed on a busy highway, where the likelihood of an accident was significantly increased.
    * Witnesses reported that the plaintiff had been seen adjusting their seat belt before the trip, suggesting an intention to use it.

  • Element 3. The plaintiff failed to wear a seat belt. The plaintiff didn’t buckle up their seat belt during the accident, which can be used as a defense by the other party, suggesting that their lack of safety measures contributed to their injuries and may reduce the amount of compensation they can receive.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was observed exiting the vehicle without a seat belt fastened.
    * Witnesses reported seeing the plaintiff driving without a seat belt during the trip leading to the accident.
    * The police report indicated that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the collision.
    * The vehicle’s seat belt alarm was found to be inoperable, but the plaintiff did not attempt to secure themselves.
    * Surveillance footage from a nearby location shows the plaintiff entering the vehicle without buckling their seat belt.

  • Element 4. The plaintiff’s injuries would have been avoided or would have been less severe if the plaintiff had used a seat belt. If the person who got hurt had been wearing a seat belt, their injuries would either not have happened or would have been less serious.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle during the collision, resulting in more severe injuries that could have been mitigated by wearing a seat belt.
    * Medical records indicate that the plaintiff sustained head trauma that is commonly associated with unrestrained occupants in car accidents.
    * Witness statements confirm that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident, which is known to significantly increase the risk of injury.
    * Crash test data shows that seat belts reduce the risk of serious injury by up to 50% in similar collision scenarios.
    * The vehicle was equipped with functioning seat belts, which the plaintiff chose not to use, despite being aware of their safety benefits.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 712.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Defense of Failure to Wear A Seat Belt, it’s crucial to have a solid strategy. With a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5, you’ll be equipped to determine what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Don’t navigate this complex process alone—empower yourself with the right tools and knowledge.

Prove Your CA Failure to Wear A Seat belt Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.