Topic:
LIABILITY (LAW); AUTOMOBILE SAFETY APPLIANCES; CIVIL PROCEDURE;
Location:
SEAT BELTS;
Scope:
Court Cases; Connecticut laws/regulations;

OLR Research Report


November 4, 1998 98-R-1314

FROM: Jerome Harleston, Senior Attorney

RE: Colorado Supreme Court Seat Belt Decision

You asked for information on a Colorado Supreme Court decision that upheld a lower court's jury instruction about a seat belt defense.

In Anderson vs. Watson (No. 96sc505), the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed an appeals' court decision that upheld the trial court's instruction to the jury that it could decrease a pain and suffering award if the injured party failed to use an available seat belt.

The defendant Watson alleged that because the plaintiff Anderson was not wearing a seat belt she failed to mitigate her non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering) from a car accident.

A Colorado statute (CSA § 42-4-237(7)) says that evidence that a driver or front seat passenger in a car failed to use its safety belt system while the car was being operated is admissible to mitigate damages caused to any person who is involved in an accident and seeks to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident.

The appeals court found that an inference was supported by the evidence that the non-use of a seat belt enhanced Anderson's injuries, and consequently, her pain and suffering.

The Supreme Court considered the nature of the evidence that a defendant must present before the jury is instructed on the seat belt defense and upheld the appeals court's judgment on different grounds. It held that under the statute, a defendant who raises the seat belt defense only needs to present sufficient evidence to show that the plaintiff was not wearing one before the jury is instructed on the defense. The defendant does not have to present evidence about the relationship of the defendant's injuries to non-use of a seat belt in order for the trial court to submit the seat belt defense instructions to the jury. The court states, “by enacting the seat belt defense, the General Assembly has already determined as a matter of law that there is a casual connection between non-use of a seat belt and pain and suffering damages.”

JH:pa