Abstract

The rapid increase in automobile fatalities and injuries during the past five years has prompted the federal and state governments to act in an effort to reduce the slaughter on America's highways. As a protective measure, federal motor vehicle safety standards and statutes in most states require the installation of seat belts in all passenger cars. In light of these facts, it is not surprising that enterprising defense lawyers have argued that failure of a plaintiff to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence. Some courts have accepted such a contention and have held that the defense is a proper question for jury consideration; others have refused to let the jury consider it. These latter courts fail to recognize that valid policy considerations underlie such statutes and as a result eliminate what could have been an effective stimulus to "buckling up."

It is submitted that failure to wear a seat belt constitutes contributory negligence. In an attempt to support this contention, this comment will examine the reasonableness of plaintiffs choice not to wear a seat belt; problems of causation presented when asserting the defense; the effect on plaintiff's recovery if he is found to be contributorily negligent; other defenses that might be raised; and constitutional problems involved in statutes requiring the use of seat belts.

How to Cite