Plan B Forum

http://time.com/3446289/walmart-tracy-morgan-seatbelts/


I am sure there are lawyers here who will say this is reasonable.

It's bullshit, but it's standard operating procedure in defending a motor vehicle personal injury case. For those who have not been following the case and/or who don't want to click thru, Tracy Morgan was seriously injured last summer on the New Jersey Turnpike when a Wal-Mart tractor-trailer crashed into the rear of the limo in which he was a passenger. The accident also killed another passenger, James McNair, and injured two others.

Morgan sued the driver and Wal-Mart, filing a Complaint in federal court alleging the defendants' negligence. Wal-Mart has now filed its formal Answer to the Complaint. Typically, an Answer first denies the allegations concerning the defendants' wrongful conduct, and then goes on to list Affirmative Defenses, which have to be pleaded or otherwise they are deemed waived. These defenses include contributory and comparative negligence, which is essentially to say, "Even if we were negligent, the injuries were made worse by the plaintiff's own negligence, and we shouldn't be held responsible for that." So in its Answer, Wal-Mart pleaded the standard "seatbelt defense" as follows:

[T]he injuries “were caused, in whole or in part, by plaintiffs’ failure to properly wear an appropriate available seatbelt restraint device.”

“By failing to exercise ordinary care in making use of available seatbelts, upon information and belief, plaintiffs acted unreasonably and in disregard of plaintiffs’ own best interests,” the response says. “Accordingly, all or a portion of the injuries could have been diminished or minimized by the exercise of reasonable conduct in using the available seatbelts.”

Virtually every motor vehicle accident case includes this defense in the Answer, but it is almost never actually raised as an issue at trial -- partly because it is nearly impossible to prove how much of a reduction in injury there would have been, and partly because it would most likely just piss off the jury, especially if you've got a decent plaintiff's lawyer who can take apart the defense factually during the testimony and then ridicule it in closing arguments as a cheap attempt to blame the victim and evade responsibility when we all know exactly whose fault the accident was.

I wouldn't take it too seriously, but in such a high-profile case with such clear liability it does make Wal-Mart and their attorneys look like assholes.

Which is okay by me.

Call me dense, but i don't see what is particularly outrageous about a defendant citing a violation of both the law and the common sense god gave a turnip as being a contributing factor to a plaintiff's injuries. If I decide to put on blindfold and go wandering outside without anyone or anything to guide me, and I step off the sidewalk into the path of a car that is both speeding and going the wrong way, sure the driver is at fault, but so am I. Seatbelt laws were put in place so that people riding in cars would use them to reduce the risk of serious injury and death; if they choose to flout the law and disregard their own safety, then yes, they should bear some responsibility if their injuries can be demonstrated to be more severe than would otherwise have been the case.

Is not wearing seatbelts legal?

Failure to wear seatbelts is a violation of the law in many US jurisdictions; here in Montana it cannot be the primary basis for a traffic stop, but can be cited in addition to whatever the primary reason for the stop was. The only exception is that failure to properly restrain minor children in either a seatbelt or car seat, booster seat, etc. is a primary basis for a traffic stop. (Essentially, we leave room for idiot 'libertarian' adults to refuse to wear a seatbelt.)

Years of extensive testing and studies done by NHTSA, car manufacturers and others has proven demonstrably and unequivocally that in 99% of cases, seatbelts limit injury and save lives. (In a very few, very rare cases, a seatbelt is an obstacle to survival.)

Because of this incontrovertible evidence, legislatures have taken the public policy position to require seatbelt usage because we all, as a society, bear the cost of the deaths and disabilities caused when idiots don't wear seatbelts.

Princess Diana would VERY likely be alive today had she been wearing her seatbelt, and I'm fairly sure given the breadth of research into accident mechanics that a reasonable case could be made that Tracy Morgan's injuries would have been less severe had he been belted, too - and that his companion may have avoided death.

This is not to say that the driver wasn't largely or even wholly at fault for the crash - but failure to wear a seatbelt is contributory negligence and the attorney defending the driver and his employer would be remiss not to include that assertion in the responsive pleading - as Sue said.

I simply don't understand why anybody would ever fail to be seatbelted in any vehicle traveling at a rate of speed greater than 15-20 mph. MAYBE it is excuseable to fail to use the belt if one is traveling a few blocks in town at a very low rate of speed - but why not just click it every time, like brushing one's teeth it should be a habit that doesn't even require consideration.

I can't speak to Sue's experience in this regard - doing PI work, I'm sure she's seen some pretty bad accidents. In my own experience, having seen photos of far too many crashes in which unbelted drivers or passengers exited a vehicle at a high rate of speed through the windshield, out the sunroof or t-top, or out a side window - indescribably horrific, and such a terrible waste of life when the seatbelt most often would see the same individual walk away from a crash with only minor injuries.

Montana's Highway Patrol put out a video a few years back called 'Room to Live' - it shows the results of numerous crashes in which, had the driver or passenger been belted, the vehicle - as designed to do - crumpled on impact but leaving within the safety cage of the vehicle ample space for that person to survive. Because they were not belted, they died horribly. I make young drivers convicted of seatbelt violations watch the 15 minute video as a condition of sentence.

Failure to wear a seatbelt is stupid and negligent.

Then don't invite me to dinner, or put me on that jury, either.

The occupants of the vehicle chose not to wear seat belts on the New Jersey freaking turnpike. It was a bad choice. They have to take some consequence for their bad choices. NO, they didn't deserve to get smashed by a WalMart truck, but there sure should be lots of NHTSA data demonstrating their injuries could/should have been less, and if I was WalMart's lawyer I'd go looking for it.

It's the same kind of stupid decision as not wearing a helmet on a bicycle or motorcycle, or crossing the street in the middle of the block when there are crosswalks at the corners. You could have done something very simple to protect yourself and you didn't. And the chances were slim you weren't going to get hurt. But when you did, you should bear some responsibility for failing to take that simple action.

some one should market huge full body condoms for the nanny state fans out there....

life is messy, get some on you!

...and not having the sense that god gave a turnip is my line!!!!

It's the same kind of stupid decision as not wearing a helmet on a bicycle or motorcycle, or crossing the street in the middle of the block when there are crosswalks at the corners. You could have done something very simple to protect yourself and you didn't. And the chances were slim you weren't going to get hurt. But when you did, you should bear some responsibility for failing to take that simple action.

Yeah, well I bet if you were at my house and tripped over a rug you would sue me for not having foreseen that the rug might cause you to trip. We can just meet in a nice restaurant where the odds of my liability are not so great. You can pick the restaurant just to be on the safe side. I am not sure how liable I might be if you don't chew your food thoroughly and choke and I chose the restaurant. You might make a case that I ought to have seen that coming in a steak house.

This to me is like blaming a rape victim for dressing in an immodest manner. She should have dressed more conservatively because dressing in a low cut top and short shorts upped the odds of her being rapped. If she had worn a Burqua it would have kept her safer. You know, perhaps she would have simply been fondled and there would not have been full penetration.

Not even close to the same, not even in the same ballpark. But I have to run off to court so I'll have to explain the difference to you later

Oh and for what it's worth, I fell backwards out of a chair through a screen onto the ground about 4 feet below at a friends house. I ended up in the ER with a concussion, and bruises along one side of my face that made me look like I had been beaten. Of course I didn't sue them. So get over thinking that we're suit happy. And oh yeah, your "reasonable "friend above Sue, is the one that brings the suits. I mostly, but not exclusively, defend them.

And oh yeah, Wes, how is requiring reasonable adults to take minor safety precautions that will have a huge impact on their safety, a nanny state?

But go ahead and don't wear your helmet or your seatbelt, we call you folks "organ donors. "

I was an organ donor, since about 1985 . then I found that some doctors didn t make much effort to save donors. last license renewal I decided against remaining a donor.

maybe I could be a soylent green salad instead....

but I d rather be thrown to the crabs in the bay, I ve eaten enough of them, so its only fair that they get a few nibbles when I m gone

"reasonable adults" can make their own decisions.

I was more on the libritarian side of the seatbelt debate until I really got into the nuts and bolts of automotive design and the fact that just about every safety measure relies on the occupant being in the proper position at the proper moment and that is set up by the seatbelts. So if you are driving in a modern car you are not ol y more likely to be injured or killed from the accident you are more likely to be injured or killed by the very things designed to save you.

That being said when it comes to being a passenger in a limo (and to a lesser extent even the driver). Ignore everything I just said those cars have limited to no crash test requirements to to their custom and low volume nature. occupant safty is a big question mark and I could envision more than one scenario where being buckled in could actually harm you due to the "non-standard" seating arrangements common in limos.

After all we are just getting to the point where seat belts are being offered in schools busses and that requires both districts to pay for the option and follow through with the adjustments required for changing them over between high school and Elementary school configurations.

wesw wrote:"reasonable adults" can make their own decisions.

Reasonable adults are not aware of all the facts and are overly swayed by non scientific anecdotal evidence.

Guinevere wrote:Not even close to the same, not even in the same ballpark. But I have to run off to court so I'll have to explain the difference to you later

Oh and for what it's worth, I fell backwards out of a chair through a screen onto the ground about 4 feet below at a friends house. I ended up in the ER with a concussion, and bruises along one side of my face that made me look like I had been beaten. Of course I didn't sue them. So get over thinking that we're suit happy. And oh yeah, your "reasonable "friend above Sue, is the one that brings the suits. I mostly, but not exclusively, defend them.

I am very anti-lawyer right now so hyperbole is my friend.

if you choose safety over liberty, you ll end up having neither

If you're going to misquote Franklin, at least you could refrain from doing so in situations that completely trivialize what he was getting at.

wesw wrote:I was an organ donor, since about 1985 . then I found that some doctors didn t make much effort to save donors. last license renewal I decided against remaining a donor.

I would be absolutely shocked to see any actual evidence supporting this outrageous assertion; it goes against the Hippocratic oath and is entirely contrary to the attitude of every ER/trauma doctor I've ever known (and I have friends who are ER/trauma docs).