seat belt defense in Florida

1988A case that was primarily relied on by the Florida Supreme Court in Pasakarnis , in its holding that the seat belt defense is relevant for the purpose of apportioning an injured party's damages, [4] was that of Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 916 , 323 N.E.2d 164 , 80 A.L.R.3d 1025 (1974), acknowledging that a plaintiff's duty to mitigate his or her damages is equivalent to the doctrine of avoidable consequences, precluding a plaintiff's recovery for any damages which could have been eliminated by reasonable conduct on his or her behalf.

1988A case that was primarily relied on by the Florida Supreme Court in Pasakarnis , in its holding that the seat belt defense is relevant for the purpose of apportioning an injured party's damages, [4] was that of Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444 , 363 N.Y.S.2d 916 , 323 N.E.2d 164 , 80 A.L.R.3d 1025 (1974), acknowledging that a plaintiff's duty to mitigate his or her damages is equivalent to the doctrine of avoidable consequences, precluding a plaintiff's recovery for any damages which could have been eliminated by reasonable conduct on his or her behalf.

1982The claim that a "veritable battle of experts" on the issue of causation, see Amend v. Bell, 89 Wash.2d 124 , 570 P.2d 138 (1977) would result from a recognition of the seat belt defense is perhaps best met by a response of "so what?" There is no reason whatever why the jury cannot be entrusted with weighing expert opinions on this, as it is on so many other complex issues. [5] 3.

1982The claim that a "veritable battle of experts" on the issue of causation, see Amend v. Bell, 89 Wash.2d 124 , 570 P.2d 138 (1977) would result from a recognition of the seat belt defense is perhaps best met by a response of "so what?" There is no reason whatever why the jury cannot be entrusted with weighing expert opinions on this, as it is on so many other complex issues. [5] 3.

1992As we said in Youngentob v. Allstate Insurance Co., 519 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the outcome is controlled by the supreme court’s decision in Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984).

1988It was also error for the trial court to instruct the jury on the seat belt defense 2 in the absence of any evidence that the seat belts in the Thomas vehicle were fully operational, Youngentob v. Allstate Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) and in the absence of any evidence that the failure of Mr. Thomas to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing the damages sustained by him.

1989We recognize that the first district has permitted the seat belt defense to be considered by the jury where testimony established that the vehicle in question was relatively new and was equipped with seat belts that "clicked." American Automobile Ass'n v. Tehrani, 508 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

1989In American Automobile Ass'n v. Tehrani, 508 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), a jury was permitted to consider a seat belt defense where the evidence established that the car involved was relatively new and in good condition, and was equipped with seat belts which "clicked." A common thread running through these cases is the requirement of competent evidence to show that, at or near the time of the accident, the seat belt or belts in the vehicle were anchored to the vehicle body and contained buckles which close securely when utilized or tested.

1984Lafferty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 425 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

1984Relying on its decisions in Lafferty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 425 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the Fourth District, in the present case, held that the seat belt defense is not available to a defendant.

2011This court considered the issue of the evidence necessary for supporting a seat-belt defense in Houghton v. Bond, 680 So.2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

2005Based on the record before us, which shows that DO & CO presented no evidence of a causal relationship between Chapman’s injury and the alleged failure to wear a seat belt, we cannot conclude that the directed verdict was error. 1 The seminal case on this issue is Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984), abrogated on other grounds, Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934 (Fla.1996).

2005Morrow v. State, 848 So.2d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), supports Cooks' contention that the officers lacked a reasonable suspicion necessary to detain or cite him for the seat belt violation.

2005In Morrow , this court held that an officer lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify an investigatory detention of a front seat passenger where the officer testified that he did not know whether the passenger had been wearing a seat belt while the car was moving. 848 So.2d at 1292 .

1995The trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s opinion in Bulldog Leasing Co. v. Curtis, 630 So.2d 1060 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 141 , 130 L.Ed.2d 82 (1994), wherein the court clarified its earlier decision in Insur ance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984).

1995The trial court did not have the benefit of the supreme court’s opinion in Bulldog Leasing Co. v. Curtis, 630 So.2d 1060 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 141 , 130 L.Ed.2d 82 (1994), wherein the court clarified its earlier decision in Insur ance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984).

1994The New York court placed the burden on the plaintiff rather than the defendant by stating that, in the absence of proof that either the seat belt was unavailable or defective, "it should be presumed that all of the seat belts with which a vehicle has been equipped are both operable and available." DiMauro v. Metropolitan Business Auth., 105 A.D.2d 236 , 483 N.Y.S.2d 383 , 391 (1984). [8] See § 95.11, Fla. Stat. (1991).

1991After the Supreme Court adopted the seat belt defense in Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1984), this court held in Booth v. Abbey Road Beef & Booze, Inc., 532 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988): Because this issue is a defense it is up to the defense to prove that: One) There was a seat belt available to plaintiff; Two) It was fully operational; Three) Plaintiff failed to use it... . 532 So.2d at 1290 .

1991After the Supreme Court adopted the seat belt defense in Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla. 1984), this court held in Booth v. Abbey Road Beef & Booze, Inc., 532 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988): Because this issue is a defense it is up to the defense to prove that: One) There was a seat belt available to plaintiff; Two) It was fully operational; Three) Plaintiff failed to use it... . 532 So.2d at 1290 .

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1990Appellee had successfully obtained an order excluding the appellant's accident reconstruction expert from the trial based on the expert's failure to make himself available for deposition a reasonable time before trial. [1] Appellant contended, relying on Burns v. Smith, 476 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), that expert testimony was not required to establish the plaintiff's back injury was caused by or exacerbated by the failure to wear her seat belt.

1990See, e.g., Bartholf v. Baker, 71 So.2d 480 (Fla. 1954); Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1953); Farrington v. Richardson, 153 Fla. 907 , 16 So.2d 158 (1944); Gilliland v. Mercantile Inv. & Holding Co., 147 Fla. 613 , 3 So.2d 148 (1941); Lakeland v. Douglass, 143 Fla. 771 , 197 So. 467 (1940); Baggett v. Davis, 124 Fla. 701 , 169 So. 372 (1936); Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

1989McCoy relies upon England v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 1340 (M.D.Fla. 1986), to support her contention that the jury should not have been permitted to consider whether the decedent's failure to use a seat belt contributed to his injuries because the seat belt defense is inapplicable in a wrongful death action.

1989McCoy relies upon England v. United States, 632 F. Supp. 1340 (M.D.Fla. 1986), to support her contention that the jury should not have been permitted to consider whether the decedent's failure to use a seat belt contributed to his injuries because the seat belt defense is inapplicable in a wrongful death action.