One of the most common questions that comes up in personal injury law is about safety equipment. People wonder if they can get in trouble or automatically lose a case for failing to wear a helmet or use a seat belt. Or, if not wearing safety gear could be a contributing factor to an injury. There is a difference between causing an accident and failing to do everything you can to protect yourself from injury.
Generally, it is accepted that evidence of seat belt use is not admissible in trial unless the manufacturer is being sued for an injury related to the seat belt. Personal injury attorneys are concerned with fault for the incident. Courts around the country go either way on the seat belt defense, but the prohibition of the seat belt defense is codified in NRS 484D.495(4)(b) and (c), which states that not wearing a seat belt:
(b) May not be considered as negligence or as causation in any civil action or as negligent or reckless driving under NRS 484B.653.
(c) May not be considered as misuse or abuse of a product or as causation in any action brought to recover damages for injury to a person or property resulting from the manufacture, distribution, sale or use of a product.
Nevada does not allow evidence of the use of a seat belt, except when the seatbelt manufacturer is being sued for product defect.
Nevada does not have a corresponding helmet admissibility rule, but the principle is the same. If courts accept that failure to wear a helmet did not cause an injury, the driver that knocked you off the motorcycle caused the injury, then wearing or not wearing a helmet is not material to the case.
A Few Considerations
1) Did the failure to use a seat belt or helmet cause the accident? No. Use (or lack thereof) of a seat belt or helmet had nothing to do with the accident. The negligence of the defendant caused the accident.
2) Did the failure to use a seat belt or helmet cause the injury? No, the impact of the victim’s head on the ground caused the injury. Use or non-use of a seat belt or a helmet has nothing to do with causation of the accident or the causation of the injury.
3) Most importantly, did the plaintiff violate the Rule of Avoidable Consequences and fail to mitigate damages by non-use of a seat belt or helmet? Failure to mitigate the harm of the tort only involves actions taken after the accident. The decision to not use a seat belt or helmet happens before the tort occurs. Therefore, the plaintiff’s requirement to mitigate damages does not apply, unless the plaintiff had the power to put the seat belt on between the time that the crash was obviously imminent and when the injury was sustained.
4) What about the statutory obligation to use seat belts or helmets? To whom does that duty extend? Does my duty to wear a helmet apply to the state or society generally, does it apply to the individual, or does it apply to the person at fault? It does not seem reasonable that a person should owe a duty to the person who hit them. If it does not apply to the person who is at fault, they should not gain the benefit of said duty.
It may seem unfair that a tortfeasor should pay for an injury that could have been avoided by the prudence of the victim. But which is more unfair?
An Example Scenario
A 30 year old single mother of two is riding as a passenger on a motorcycle and is not wearing a helmet. At a stop light, a car rear-ends the bike, ejecting our victim. She clearly is not at fault for the accident. She dies as a result of a traumatic brain injury from the accident. It is likely that she would not have been severely injured if she had been wearing a helmet. Is it expected that the driver of the car be given a break because the person they killed might have lived if they wore a helmet? Does that really lessen their fault in the accident?
As a society, where is it just to assign the burden of the loss? On the innocent victim who knows that there is some risk of an accident every time they go on the road, but does not consent to being hit? Or on the tortfeasor who actually has committed a wrongful act?
Any simple Coasian analysis would conclude that haphazard driving of the tortfeasor is adding no utility to society, so why should they be shielded from liability? Although it is preferable that all folks wear seat belts or helmets, the primary objective of the law in these instances is to encourage people to drive with prudence.