Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444 (1974)

In New York, non-use of an available seatbelt is a factor for the jury to consider in determining whether the plaintiff exercised due care to mitigate the extent of their injuries, but it does not bear on the question of liability.

Summary

In this personal injury case arising from a car accident, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the novel question of whether a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt should impact their recovery. The plaintiff was ejected from her vehicle and sustained serious injuries. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were exacerbated by her failure to use an available seatbelt. The Court held that non-use of a seatbelt is relevant to the mitigation of damages, not to the determination of liability. The burden of proving that non-use increased the extent of the injuries rests on the defendant. The jury may consider the seatbelt defense when determining damages if the defendant demonstrates a causal connection between the non-use of the seatbelt and the injuries sustained.

Facts

On March 10, 1970, the plaintiff was driving her car on Route 31 when she attempted to make a left turn. As she turned, her car was struck by the defendant’s tractor-trailer, which was attempting to pass her. The plaintiff was ejected from her vehicle and pinned under the wheel, resulting in severe injuries to her legs. The plaintiff’s vehicle was equipped with seatbelts, but she was not wearing one at the time of the accident. The defendant’s expert witness testified that the plaintiff would likely have sustained only minor injuries had she been wearing a seatbelt.

Procedural History

The trial court permitted the defense expert to testify regarding the likely outcome had the plaintiff used a seatbelt and charged the jury accordingly. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the jury found negligence on the part of both the plaintiff and the defendants and did not reach the issue of damages. The plaintiff appealed by leave of the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes negligence per se, barring recovery.
2. Whether a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence.
3. Whether evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seatbelt is admissible to mitigate damages.

Holding

1. No, because Section 383 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law does not mandate seatbelt use.
2. No, because contributory negligence applies only when a plaintiff’s failure to exercise due care causes the accident itself, not merely exacerbates injuries.
3. Yes, because non-use of an available seat belt may be considered by the jury when assessing damages if it is shown that the seatbelt would have prevented at least a portion of the injuries.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes negligence per se, noting that New York law does not require seatbelt usage. It also dismissed the notion of contributory negligence in this context, asserting that contributory negligence applies only when the plaintiff’s negligence contributes to the accident itself, not merely the extent of the injuries. The court distinguished between conduct causing the accident and conduct exacerbating injuries after the accident. Quoting Dillon v. Humphreys, the Court stated that contributory negligence is applicable only if the plaintiff’s failure to exercise due care causes, in whole or in part, the accident, rather than when it merely exacerbates or enhances the severity of his injuries.

However, the Court found merit in the argument that non-use of a seatbelt is relevant to the mitigation of damages. The Court analogized the seatbelt defense to the doctrine of avoidable consequences, traditionally applied to post-accident conduct. The Court recognized that the seatbelt offers an unusual means for a plaintiff to minimize damages before an accident. Citing established safety research, the court stated that “[t]he seat belt, properly installed and properly worn, still offers the single best protection available to the automotive occupant exposed to an impact.”

The Court acknowledged concerns about juries speculating on damages but noted that juries are often asked to apportion damages in other contexts, such as between an original tortfeasor and a negligent physician. The burden rests on the defendant to prove a causal connection between the non-use of the seatbelt and the injuries sustained; without such proof, the issue should not be submitted to the jury. In this case, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to submit the issue to the jury, as the defendant’s expert provided testimony that the plaintiff’s ejection and subsequent injuries would have been prevented by seatbelt use.