seat belt defense in Pennsylvania

1987In Parise v. Fehnel, 267 Pa. Super. 79 , 406 A.2d 345 (1979), the court affirmed a lower court holding that the trial judge properly refused to submit a seat belt defense to the jury in a case where there had been no expert testimony which would support a finding that the use of a seat belt could have prevented or diminish ed the injuries sustained by plaintiff.

1987In Parise v. Fehnel, 267 Pa. Super. 79 , 406 A.2d 345 (1979), the court affirmed a lower court holding that the trial judge properly refused to submit a seat belt defense to the jury in a case where there had been no expert testimony which would support a finding that the use of a seat belt could have prevented or diminish ed the injuries sustained by plaintiff.

1995It adopted the position of the New Jersey Superior Court in Barry v. Coca Cola Co., 99 N.J.Super. 270 , 239 A.2d 273 (1967), which held it might have allowed a seat belt defense if the defendant had introduced expert testimony demonstrating a relationship between the plaintiffs injuries and his failure to use a seat belt.

1995It adopted the position of the New Jersey Superior Court in Barry v. Coca Cola Co., 99 N.J.Super. 270 , 239 A.2d 273 (1967), which held it might have allowed a seat belt defense if the defendant had introduced expert testimony demonstrating a relationship between the plaintiffs injuries and his failure to use a seat belt.

1987Another more recent Superior Court case, McKee v. Southeast Delco School District, 354 Pa. Super. 433 , 512 A.2d 28 (1986), also considered the availability of a seat belt defense collaterally.

1987Another more recent Superior Court case, McKee v. Southeast Delco School District, 354 Pa. Super. 433 , 512 A.2d 28 (1986), also considered the availability of a seat belt defense collaterally.

1990In Grim v. Betz, 372 Pa. Super. 614 , 539 A.2d 365 (1988), involving claims by the driver and passengers, the Superior Court forbade the seat belt defense even though the accident in question occurred prior to the Act of November 27, 1987.

1989The Superior Court stated that, except for the three year old child who had been killed, the trial court was wrong in deciding that the law at that time did not permit the seat belt defense. *615 Relying, however, on the well recognized concept that a reviewing court may affirm the tribunal below if correct on any grounds, Butler v. DeLuca, 329 Pa. Superior Ct. 383 , 478 A.2d 840 (1984), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court because at the time the Superior Court was deciding the case following the effective date of the 1987 amendments, "the availability of a `seat belt defense' in Penns

1992The court held that when conducting a routine traffic stop, an officer may request a driver’s license and vehicle registration, run a computer check and issue a citation. 864 F.2d at 1519 .

1990I find my conclusion is supported by Pennsylvania law and is governed by the decision of the Commonwealth Court in the case of Stouffer v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation, 127 Pa. Commw. 606 , 562 A.2d 922 (1989).

1990I find my conclusion is supported by Pennsylvania law and is governed by the decision of the Commonwealth Court in the case of Stouffer v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation, 127 Pa. Commw. 606 , 562 A.2d 922 (1989).

1990Since our decision in Yeager, supra, and Diebert, supra, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held that there is no seat belt defense in Pennsylvania, Grim v. Betz, 372 Pa. Super. 614 , 539 A.2d 1365 (1988), and the Commonwealth Court has held that there is, Stouffer v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation, 127 Commw. 606, 562 A.2d 922 (1989).

1990In Grim v. Betz, 372 Pa. Super. 614 , 539 A.2d 365 (1988), involving claims by the driver and passengers, the Superior Court forbade the seat belt defense even though the accident in question occurred prior to the Act of November 27, 1987.

1989The Superior Court stated that, except for the three year old child who had been killed, the trial court was wrong in deciding that the law at that time did not permit the seat belt defense. *615 Relying, however, on the well recognized concept that a reviewing court may affirm the tribunal below if correct on any grounds, Butler v. DeLuca, 329 Pa. Superior Ct. 383 , 478 A.2d 840 (1984), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court because at the time the Superior Court was deciding the case following the effective date of the 1987 amendments, "the availability of a `seat belt defense' in Penns

1989The Superior Court stated that, except for the three year old child who had been killed, the trial court was wrong in deciding that the law at that time did not permit the seat belt defense. *615 Relying, however, on the well recognized concept that a reviewing court may affirm the tribunal below if correct on any grounds, Butler v. DeLuca, 329 Pa. Superior Ct. 383 , 478 A.2d 840 (1984), the Superior Court affirmed the trial court because at the time the Superior Court was deciding the case following the effective date of the 1987 amendments, "the availability of a `seat belt defense' in Penns

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1988An earlier case decided in the federal courts, but applying Pennsylvania law, disallowed the use of the seat belt defense, Pritts v. Walter Lowrey Trucking Co., 400 F. Supp. 867 (W.D.

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1988The duty to mitigate damages does not arise until the tortious act has taken place, Downs v. Scott, 201 Pa. Super. 278 , 191 A.2d 908 (1963), and that duty in a Pennsylvania personal injury case has been held to relate to the obligation to seek treatment of the injury, Hilscher v. Ickinger, 194 Pa. Super. 237 , 166 A.2d 678 (1961), affd on opinion below 403 Pa. 596 , 170 A.2d 595 (1961), so a failure to use a seat belt prior to the impact that occurred in this case should not be admissible on a mitigation of damages theory.

1987In Dunn v. Teti, 280 Pa. Super., 399, 421 A.2d 782 (1980), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania • ruled that there is a conclusive presumption that a child under the age of seven is incapable of negligence.