seat belt defense (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

seat belt defense in Arizona

5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz.green
ariz · 1988 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Decision of the Court distance of five hundred feet ahead”); A.R.S. § 28-909(A)(1) (requiring “[e]ach front seat occupant of a motor vehicle” to “[h]ave the lap and shoulder belt properly adjusted and fastened while the vehicle is in motion”); see also Law v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 147, 157 (1988) (recognizing “the seat belt defense as a matter which the jury may consider in apportioning damages due to the ‘fault’ of the plaintiff”). ¶23 The record does not support the superior court’s finding that Manning and Kuzel, in large part, simply “guess[ed].” To the contrary, the record reflects th

11
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurancegreen
ariz · 1987 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
2 sentences

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidente occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. 2 See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidente occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. 2 See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

CaseCitedYears
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. green
ariz · 1982
2 sentences

2016As the court noted in Grant, “the prime factor to consider is whether the record clearly establishes that the improper conduct caused the jury to return a verdict which was the result of passion and prejudice.” 133 Ariz. at 452 , 652 P.2d at 525 . ¶13 Leavy, however, involved violations of pre-trial orders which precluded the defendants from raising the seat-belt defense and an expert’s testimony about the credibility of certain accident witnesses, as well as evidence that the plaintiff’s bottle of whiskey was found near the accident site because there was no evidence of use or impairment. 188

2016As the court noted in Grant, “the prime factor to consider is whether the record clearly establishes that the improper conduct caused the jury to return a verdict which was the result of passion and prejudice.” 133 Ariz. at 452 , 652 P.2d at 525 . ¶13 Leavy, however, involved violations of pre-trial orders which precluded the defendants from raising the seat-belt defense and an expert’s testimony about the credibility of certain accident witnesses, as well as evidence that the plaintiff’s bottle of whiskey was found near the accident site because there was no evidence of use or impairment. 188

12016–2016
Leavy v. Parsell green
ariz · 1997
2 sentences

2016As the court noted in Grant, “the prime factor to consider is whether the record clearly establishes that the improper conduct caused the jury to return a verdict which was the result of passion and prejudice.” 133 Ariz. at 452 , 652 P.2d at 525 . ¶13 Leavy, however, involved violations of pre-trial orders which precluded the defendants from raising the seat-belt defense and an expert’s testimony about the credibility of certain accident witnesses, as well as evidence that the plaintiff’s bottle of whiskey was found near the accident site because there was no evidence of use or impairment. 188

2016As the court noted in Grant, “the prime factor to consider is whether the record clearly establishes that the improper conduct caused the jury to return a verdict which was the result of passion and prejudice.” 133 Ariz. at 452 , 652 P.2d at 525 . ¶13 Leavy, however, involved violations of pre-trial orders which precluded the defendants from raising the seat-belt defense and an expert’s testimony about the credibility of certain accident witnesses, as well as evidence that the plaintiff’s bottle of whiskey was found near the accident site because there was no evidence of use or impairment. 188

12016–2016
Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. green
nj · 1984
2 sentences

1988Ordinarily, even when a decision has solely prospective effect, “the fruits of the struggle are awarded the successful litigant.” Coons, 96 N.J. at 434 , 476 A.2d at 772 .

1988Ordinarily, even when a decision has solely prospective effect, “the fruits of the struggle are awarded the successful litigant.” Coons, 96 N.J. at 434 , 476 A.2d at 772 .

11988–1988
Random House, Inc. v. Salinger green
scotus · 1987
2 sentences

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidents occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. [2] See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidente occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. 2 See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

11988–1988
Marcos v. United States green
scotus · 1987
2 sentences

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidents occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. [2] See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

1988On balance, we believe that the best and most equitable rule is simply to make our original decision effective and applicable to all accidente occurring after the date on which the mandate in this case is filed. 2 See Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance Co., 152 Ariz. 490, 505 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1088 (choosing the date of mandate as appropriate point to impose new burden of proof for punitive damages), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 212 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).

11988–1988
Bentzler v. Braun green
wis · 1967
2 sentences

1986Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis.2d 362 , 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967).

1986Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis.2d 362 , 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967).

11986–1986
Nash v. Kamrath green
arizctapp · 1974
2 sentences

1986In this special action we are called upon to reconsider the legal viability of the seat belt defense, last addressed by Arizona courts in Nash v. Kamrath, 21 Ariz.App. 530 , 521 P.2d 161 (1974).

1986In this special action we are called upon to reconsider the legal viability of the seat belt defense, last addressed by Arizona courts in Nash v. Kamrath, 21 Ariz.App. 530 , 521 P.2d 161 (1974).

11986–1986
Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis green
fla · 1984
2 sentences

1986The Florida Supreme Court adopted the seat belt defense in Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (1984).

1986The Florida Supreme Court adopted the seat belt defense in Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (1984).

11986–1986
Foley v. City of West Allis green
wis · 1983
2 sentences

1986That court discussed the issue thoroughly in its recent decision in Foley v. City of West Allis, 113 Wis.2d 475 , 335 N.W.2d 824 (1983). *145 The seat belt defense is this court's recognition that in light of the frequency of automobile accidents and the extensive injuries they cause, the general availability of seat belts, and the public knowledge that riders and drivers should `buckle up for safety,' those who fail to use available seat belts should be responsible for the incremental harm caused by their failure to wear available seat belts.

1986That court discussed the issue thoroughly in its recent decision in Foley v. City of West Allis, 113 Wis.2d 475 , 335 N.W.2d 824 (1983). *145 The seat belt defense is this court's recognition that in light of the frequency of automobile accidents and the extensive injuries they cause, the general availability of seat belts, and the public knowledge that riders and drivers should `buckle up for safety,' those who fail to use available seat belts should be responsible for the incremental harm caused by their failure to wear available seat belts.

11986–1986
Dillon v. Humphreys neutral
nysupct · 1968
2 sentences

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co. green
wash · 1972
2 sentences

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Lipscomb v. Diamiani green
delsuperct · 1967
1 sentence

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Robinson v. Lewis green
or · 1969
2 sentences

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Romankewiz v. Black green
michctapp · 1969
2 sentences

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Moore v. Fischer green
coloctapp · 1973
1 sentence

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Brown v. Kendrick green
fladistctapp · 1966
1 sentence

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974
Roberts v. Bohn green
ohioctapp · 1971
2 sentences

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

1974Moore v. Fischer, 31 Colo.App. 425 , 505 P.2d 383 (1972); Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co., Inc., 80 Wash.2d 161 , 492 P.2d 1030 (1972); Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1966); Lipscomb v. Diamiani, 226 A.2d 914 (Super.Ct.Del.1967); Robinson v. Lewis, 254 Or. 52 , 457 P.2d 483 (1969); Dillon v. Humphreys, 56 Misc.2d 211 , 288 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1968); Roberts v. Bohn, 26 Ohio App.2d 50 , 269 N.E.2d 53 (1971); Romankewiz v. Black, 16 Mich.App. 119 , 167 N.W.2d 606 (1969); Lawrence v. Westchester Fire Ins.

11974–1974

Where else courts name it

NY 31 (1974–2015) FL 29 (1981–2011) TX 19 (1969–2015) GA 16 (1987–2024) IL 14 (1972–2020) IN 12 (1977–2023) OH 12 (1985–2023) PA 11 (1986–2025) CO 9 (1973–2006) MI 9 (1969–2003) NC 8 (1968–2007) NJ 7 (1986–2001) CT 7 (1969–2018) NM 7 (1975–2015) WA 6 (1972–2007) WI 6 (1983–2004) KS 5 (1981–2008) AZ 5 (1974–2022) IA 4 (1991–2014) MA 4 (1992–2024) KY 3 (2003–2021) CA 3 (1990–2004) OR 3 (2015–2016) MN 3 (1990–2018) TN 2 (2000–2020) DE 2 (2015–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check