Colorado’s Seatbelt Law and the Effect on a Plaintiff’s Damages for Not Buckling Up

Colorado’s Seatbelt Law and the Effect on a Plaintiff’s Damages for Not Buckling Up

Everyone is aware of the “Click It or Ticket” national campaign to ensure drivers and passengers buckle up to reduce traffic related injuries and deaths on our highways. Of course, that campaign is aimed toward the traffic infraction/moving violation punitive side of the justice system, not civil matters. So, what happens in Colorado when a plaintiff commences a civil suit for injuries and damages sustained in a motor vehicle accident, but he or she failed to use a seatbelt?

A General Survey of the States

Each state is free to determine how to treat a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt when it comes to the issues of liability and damages.

Currently, thirty states do not recognize a seatbelt defense.[i] This means, in the majority of states, evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt is inadmissible for any purpose in a civil proceeding. For example, in Virginia, any driver and any person over the age of sixteen occupying the front seat of an automobile is required to wear a seat belt while the vehicle is in motion on a public highway.[ii]  However, a violation of Virginia’s seat belt law cannot constitute negligence, be considered in mitigation of damages of whatever nature, be admissible in evidence or be the subject of comment by counsel in any action for the recovery of damages arising out of the operation, ownership, or maintenance of a motor vehicle.[iii]  As a second example, in Connecticut, the driver and front seat passengers are required to use a seatbelt when a motor vehicle is in operation.[iv] Under state law, rear seat adult (i.e. age 16 and older) passengers are not required to wear a seat belt. In addition, the law requires passengers eight to 15 years old as well as all passengers in a vehicle operated by a person under 18 years old to wear a seat belt.[v] However, failure to use a seat belt cannot not be considered as contributory negligence or be admissible as evidence in any civil action.[vi]

On the other hand, fifteen states recognize a seatbelt defense, allowing for the allocation of comparative fault or the reduction of damages for a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt.[vii] Of the states recognizing a seatbelt defense, the majority allow admissibility of a plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt for the purpose of establishing a plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. Within this majority application, there is a subset of two states which permit a defendant to present evidence of non-compliance with the seatbelt law to convince the trier of fact to reduce the noneconomic category of damages only. More on this below. The minority of states permitting introduction of a plaintiff’s non-compliance with the state’s seatbelt law allow it to establish comparative fault.

An example of the mitigation of damages application of the defense can be found in New York, where a plaintiff’s non-compliance with its seatbelt law, mandating use of a seatbelt by all front seat passengers and children under the age of sixteen in front or back seats, may be introduced into evidence to establish a plaintiff failed to mitigate his or her damages, provided a defendant has pled such non-compliance as an affirmative defense.[viii]

An example of the comparative fault application of the defense can be found in Arizona, where a plaintiff’s non-compliance with its seatbelt law, requiring any person in the front seats of a motor vehicle to use a seatbelt and all persons sixteen or older to use a seatbelt in every seat of the vehicle,[ix] may be introduced to a jury in order to reduce a plaintiff’s damages due to failure to use a seat belt if injured party is of age and discretion that non-use of a seat belt would be considered a fault, non-use was unreasonable under the circumstances, and non-use of the seat belt caused or enhanced the injuries.[x]

Colorado’s Seatbelt Law

Colorado is one of the two states that permit introduction of a plaintiff’s non-compliance with the state’s seatbelt law as evidence to support the reduction of noneconomic damages only.[xi]

Pursuant to C.R.S. § 42-4-237(2), every driver of and every front seat passenger in a motor vehicle and every driver of and every passenger in an autocycle equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is being operated on a street or highway in this state.[xii]

However, evidence of failure to comply with the seatbelt law is admissible to mitigate damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor vehicle accident and who seeks in any subsequent litigation to recover damages for injuries resulting from the accident.[xiii]  Such mitigation is limited to awards for pain and suffering and cannot be used for limiting recovery of economic loss and medical payments.[xiv]

The phrase “pain and suffering” in Colorado’s seatbelt defense statutory provision, which permits a jury to consider violation of the mandatory seatbelt law to mitigate damages for pain and suffering in an automobile negligence case, encompasses all forms of noneconomic loss or injury, including inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life.[xv] However, the phrase “pain and suffering” does not encompass physical impairment and disfigurement damages, because under Colorado law, damages for physical impairment and disfigurement have historically been recognized as a separate element or category of damages.[xvi]

This distinction is significant, because Colorado caps the recovery of noneconomic damages, but does not cap physical impairment and disfigurement. Recovery of noneconomic damages for claims for relief that accrued on or after January 1, 2008, but before January 1, 2020, are capped at $468,010, which may be increased upon clear and convincing evidence an increase is warranted to $936,030.[xvii] Recovery for noneconomic damages for claims for relief that accrue on or after January 1, 2020 are capped at $613,760, which may be increased upon clear and convincing evidence an increase is warranted to $1,227,530.[xviii]

Importantly, a defendant is not required to prove affirmatively a causal connection between the non-use of the seatbelt and the alleged pain and suffering before the jury is instructed on the seat belt defense. Rather, the statute requires submission of the seat belt defense to the jury if a defendant comes forward with some competent evidence a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident.[xix] Although expert testimony on future pain and suffering may not be necessary in a given case, it may be necessary to explain the relationship of the non-use of a seat belt and possible causation, exacerbation, or enhancement of injuries in an automobile collision.[xx]

Takeaway

Best practices dictate asserting an affirmative defense, pursuant to Colorado’s seatbelt defense statutory provision, [xxi] once some competent evidence has been discovered a plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the motor vehicle accident. Typically, this information can be found in the Colorado Traffic Accident Report, police reports, or through consultation with the client or interviews with non-party witnesses in the early investigative stage. Although not necessarily required to have the jury charged on the seatbelt defense, retention of defense experts, including biomechanical engineers and relevant medical experts, is always advisable to educate the jury on the relationship of the non-use of a seat belt and the possible causation, exacerbation, enhancement, or even the prevention of the injuries being alleged by a plaintiff.

 

[i] Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

[ii] Va. Code § 46.2-1094(A).

[iii] Va. Code § 46.2-1094(D).

[iv] C.G.S. § 14-100a

[v] C.G.S. § 14-100a(c)(1)(B) and (C).

[vi] C.G.S. § 14-100a(c)(3).

[vii] Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

[viii] NY VTL 1229-c(8).

[ix] A.R.S. § 28-909.

[x] See Law v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 755 P.2d 1135 (Ariz. 1988).

[xi] Ohio being the other. Evidence of failure to use a seat belt may not be used as evidence of negligence or contributory negligence. Such evidence may be admitted to reduce compensatory damages awarded for non-economic losses. O.R.C. § 4513.263.

[xii] C.R.S. § 42-4-237(2).

[xiii] C.R.S. § 42-4-237(7).

[xiv] Id.

[xv] Pringle v. Valdez, 2007, 171 P.3d 624, 628-31.

[xvi] Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433, 441 (Colo.2001).

[xvii] C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a); see also Adjusted Limitation on Damages Certificate,

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/info_center/files/damages_new.pdf

[xviii] Id.

[xix] Anderson v. Watson, 953 P.2d 1284, 1290 (Colo. 1998) (citing Powell v. Brady, 30 Colo.App. 406, 412, 496 P.2d 328, 332 (1972) (“In order for the [mitigation of damages affirmative defense] to be submitted to the jury there must be competent evidence to the effect that plaintiff failed to take reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages.”), aff’d sub nom., Brady v. City & County of Denver, 181 Colo. 218, 508 P.2d 1254 (1973); Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d 775, 778 (Colo.1996) (explaining generally that a party is entitled to “an instruction embodying the party’s theory if there is sufficient evidence in the record to support it”); Davis v. Cline, 177 Colo. 204, 210, 493 P.2d 362, 365 (1972) (same)).

[xx] Id. at 1289.

[xxi] C.R.S. § 42-4-237(7).

Keep Reading

More by this author