Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Seatbelt Evidence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee considers allowing failure to wear seat belt as evidence of proximate cause of damages
Summary
A witness urged the panel to treat seat‑belt violations as evidence of mitigation of damages only when the failure to buckle was a proximate cause of the claimed injury; senators signaled support for drafting narrower language.
A Senate subcommittee discussed proposed language that would make failure to wear a seat belt admissible in civil actions only when the violation is a proximate cause of the claimed damages.
Megan McVeigh (witness) told the committee she favored limiting the proposed change to evidence of mitigation of damages. She suggested replacing broader comparative‑negligence wording with language that admits a seat‑belt violation "if the violation is a proximate cause of the claimed damages." McVeigh explained the change preserves the distinction between liability for the crash and damages that might have been reduced by safety device use: "Using a seat belt or not using a seat belt doesn't cause a wreck," she said.
Committee members discussed alternate wording to emphasize admissibility only when the failure to wear a belt contributed to the extent of injury; one senator proposed replacing "is admissible" with "may be admissible" to emphasize jury discretion.
The panel did not vote on text but directed staff to circulate compromise language that ties admissibility to proximate causation.
