Committee lays over contested bill to repeal Minnesota’s seat‑belt evidentiary restriction after mixed testimony

The Judiciary Committee on March 27 heard competing testimony on House File 1986, a bill to repeal Minnesota’s long‑standing restriction on admitting evidence about seat‑belt use into civil trials (the so‑called seat‑belt gag rule). The bill was laid over for future consideration; no committee vote on final disposition was taken during the hearing.

Proponents from the trucking industry argued the rule is outdated and inconsistent with modern practice. John Hausladen, president of the Minnesota Trucking Association, told the committee that seat belts are mandatory, safety data shows large protective effects and courts in other states allow seat‑belt evidence. He said repeal would allow jurors to consider all relevant evidence in comparative‑fault analysis and help reduce “nuclear verdicts.”

Attorney Paul Hopewell, who represents companies and insurers, said the gag rule dates to an era when seat belts were not mandatory and that modern comparative‑fault law and widespread seat‑belt use make the restriction obsolete. Supporters said allowing seat‑belt evidence would not automatically determine damages and that existing evidentiary rules would continue to limit improper use.

Opponents, including Joel Carlson of the Minnesota Association for Justice and plaintiff attorneys who testified, said the gag rule protects injured parties from evidence that does not bear on causation and can be used to unfairly diminish legitimate claims. Plaintiff attorney Jake Jagfeld gave a courtroom example of a rear‑end or head‑on collision in which the nonbelted passenger did not cause the crash; he said seat‑belt evidence can wrongly focus juries on mitigation rather than causation.

Committee members acknowledged the policy tradeoffs and said members would continue work on the bill; the chair laid the bill over for later hearings.