Seat Belt Defense

57 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis
  451 So. 2d 447· Fla.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 96×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear an available and operational seat belt is admissible in personal injury litigation to reduce damages (but not to establish liability for the accident itself), establishing the viability of the "seat bel
• Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.
  693 So. 2d 934· Fla.· 1996-05-30 ·cited 50×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a defendant raises evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt under Florida's safety belt law, the trial court must instruct the jury that violation of the statute constitutes evidence of negligence, and that the seat belt defen
• Vizzini v. Ford Motor Co. c/o C. T. Corp. Sys.
  569 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that evidence of a decedent's failure to use a seat belt is relevant to the apportionment of damages, even in a strict liability case, and should not be excluded.
• Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Marcus
  440 So. 2d 373· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-09-06 ·cited 36×
  Honda appealed a jury verdict finding it strictly liable for injuries to Diana Rivera from a defective automobile, with the jury awarding $3 million in damages reduced by 10% for Rivera's failure to wear a seat belt. The court reversed the trial court's grant of a new trial on da
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis
  425 So. 2d 1141· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-12-15 ·cited 30×
• Am. Auto. Ass'n, Inc. v. Feraidoon Tehrani and Aghdas Tehrani and Saad Lorestani and Zoreh Lorestani
  508 So. 2d 365· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-02-17 ·cited 28×
  This consolidated appeal involves a vehicular accident between a wrecker operated by defendants and a vehicle carrying plaintiffs as passengers. The trial court excluded the defendants' seat belt defense and admitted evidence regarding the agency relationship between a service st
• DeLONG v. The Wickes Co.
  545 So. 2d 362· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-26 ·cited 24×
  In this personal injury appeal, the DeLongs challenged a jury verdict awarding minimal damages following a vehicular collision caused by a Wickes Lumber employee. The court reversed the trial court's denial of a directed verdict on the seat belt defense due to insufficient proof
• Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Smith
  480 So. 2d 1366· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-12-30 ·cited 24×
  Shands Teaching Hospital appealed the dismissal of its complaint seeking payment for medical bills incurred by Rebecca Smith's husband. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that under Florida common law, a wife has no liability for her husband's medical bills absent an expre
• Youngentob v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  519 So. 2d 636· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-11-12 ·cited 20×
• Selfe v. Smith
  397 So. 2d 348· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-04-08 ·cited 20×
  The court upheld the trial court's exclusion of damages for a mother's emotional distress caused by her child's injury in a motor vehicle collision, and affirmed dismissal of the negligent driver's contribution claim against the parents for failing to install a child restraint de
• Henderson v. United States
  429 F.2d 588· 10th Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the suits were timely filed against the United States and that the non-use of seat belts was not a defense but could be considered in mitigation of damages.
• Scarfone v. Magaldi
  522 So. 2d 902· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-03-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the plaintiff did not meet the no-fault threshold was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that the issue was properly preserved for appeal.
• Turi Caiazzo and Frank Caiazzo v. Volkswagenweek A. G.
  647 F.2d 241· 2d Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that New York law would place the burden of proving the apportionment of damages on the defendant manufacturer in a second collision case, rather than on the plaintiff.
• Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc. v. Curtis
  630 So. 2d 1060· Fla.· 1994-01-27 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision requiring a new trial in a seat belt defense case, holding that competent evidence of existing seat belts in a vehicle establishes a prima facie case that they were operational, without requiring de
• Knapp v. Shores
  550 So. 2d 1155· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-10-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that limiting voir dire and closing arguments for one plaintiff was reversible error, and striking a comparative negligence finding based on a seat belt defense was also error due to lack of evidence.
• Brown v. Kendrick
  192 So. 2d 49· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-11-17 ·cited 15×
  The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to offer evidence of the plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt as a defense to gross negligence.
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Bermudez
  648 So. 2d 197· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-12-20 ·cited 14×
  A workers' compensation case concerning whether an employer (Dade County) could reduce benefits based on a seat belt defense. The court reversed the exclusion of critical witness testimony and remanded for determination of whether the County willfully destroyed or concealed evide
• McLEOD v. Am. Motors Corp.
  723 F.2d 830· 11th Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that under Florida law, in a concurrent causation case where the defendant's negligence is a legal cause of injury, the defendant bears the burden to prove apportionment of damages, and the trial court properly removed the apportionment issue from the jury.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Michaelyn Smith
  565 So. 2d 751· Fla. 5th DCA· 1990-07-12 ·cited 12×
  State Farm appealed the trial court's exclusion of the seat belt defense in an underinsured motorist case where the plaintiff sustained a herniated disc after not wearing a seat belt during a collision. The Fifth District affirmed the exclusion, holding that while the seat belt d
• Devolder v. Sandage
  544 So. 2d 1046· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-05-17 ·cited 12×
  The DeVolders appealed a jury verdict that awarded Mrs. DeVolder $60,000 for personal injuries but reduced it by 50% based on a seat belt defense, and awarded Mr. DeVolder nothing on his loss of consortium claim. The court reversed the reduction of Mrs. DeVolder's award, finding
• Parker v. Ervin Montgomery, Sr.
  529 So. 2d 1145· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-04-20 ·cited 12×
  In this wrongful death appeal, the First District Court of Appeal upheld a $650,238 judgment for parents whose 18-month-old child died in a vehicular accident, rejecting defendants' argument that evidence of the mother's failure to use a child restraint device should be admissibl
• State v. Caffiero
  522 So. 2d 57· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-02-12 ·cited 12×
  A passenger injured and a driver killed in a high-speed single-vehicle accident on U.S. 19 sued the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) for negligence based on inadequate roadside safety features, including a culvert headwall located too close to the road. The court revers
• Sours v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  717 F.2d 1511· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on negligence, product defect, and lack of substantial modification, and that the exclusion of seat belt evidence was harmless error.
• Mayfrey Mays v. Dealers Transit, Inc.
  441 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on contributory negligence and the seat belt defense, as there was sufficient evidence to present these issues to the jury under Indiana law.
• Jones v. Alayon
  162 So. 3d 360· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-04-08 ·cited 11×
  In this wrongful death action, the estate of Ryland Nye challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings and denial of a directed verdict on a seatbelt comparative negligence defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly
• Tandra L. Howard v. Perez
  707 So. 2d 845· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a new trial on liability was improperly granted when the jury unequivocally found the defendant solely liable, but affirmed the new trial on damages due to the jury's inconsistent and inadequate award.
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Penland
  668 So. 2d 200· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-12-06 ·cited 10×
  State Farm appealed a trial court's grant of a new trial in an underinsured motorist case, challenging the exclusion of expert testimony on vehicle occupant positioning, the denial of a motion to disqualify the judge, and the grant of summary judgment on the seat belt defense. Th
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lafferty
  451 So. 2d 446· Fla.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 10×
  Florida Supreme Court held that evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt is admissible to mitigate damages in negligence cases where the seat belt defense is properly pleaded and competent evidence shows the failure to use the belt contributed substantiall
• Mirta N. Barcello v. Rubin
  578 So. 2d 58· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-04-24 ·cited 8×
  In this personal injury appeal from an automobile accident, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's submission of the seat belt defense to the jury, holding that the defendant failed to prove the seat belt was operational where the plaintiff testified she w
• Protective Cas. Ins. Co. & Christopher Wehage v. Killane
  459 So. 2d 1037· Fla.· 1984-11-29 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision concerning the admissibility of seat belt defense evidence in a personal injury case. Although the court disapproved the district court's legal reasoning regarding the seat belt defense, it affirmed the
• Smith v. Holy Temple Church OF GOD IN Christ, Inc.
  566 So. 2d 864· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-09-05 ·cited 6×
  Irma Smith was injured in a car accident and obtained a $300,000 verdict, but the jury reduced damages by 80% based on her failure to wear a seat belt. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the seat belt defense because the defendant fa
• State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Letha Clark and Martha Mosby
  544 So. 2d 1141· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-14 ·cited 6×
  State Farm appeals the trial court's order striking its liability defenses in an uninsured motorist coverage dispute. The court holds that a default judgment against the uninsured motorist does not preclude State Farm from defending on liability issues in a single suit, and that
• Booth v. Abbey Rd. Beef & Booze, Inc.
  532 So. 2d 1288· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the union lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of homeless persons and that claims asserted on behalf of Amtrak policemen were either premature, speculative, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
• Hilton Vincent Pipkin and Sears v. Hamer
  501 So. 2d 1365· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-01-28 ·cited 6×
  In this personal injury appeal arising from a 1982 automobile collision, the court affirmed a jury verdict of $350,000 for the plaintiff, holding that the trial court properly excluded the defendant's expert witnesses for failure to comply with a comprehensive pretrial discovery
• Baker v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  793 F.2d 1196· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in submitting the seat belt defense to the jury, excluding certain evidence, and denying the claim for punitive damages.
• THE FLA. BAR STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS CIVIL 85-1
  475 So. 2d 682· Fla.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Civil) implementing the holding in Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis regarding seat belt non-use as a mitigation defense. The Court authorized publication of revised jury charg
• McCOY v. Hollywood Quarries, Inc.
  544 So. 2d 274· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-05-24 ·cited 5×
  In this wrongful death case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment that a paving contractor had no legal or contractual duty to provide temporary lane striping during road construction, and affirmed the denial of plaintiff's m
• Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Rosina Gibson and Nathan Gibson
  227 So. 2d 889· Fla. 3d DCA· 1969-11-12 ·cited 5×
  A negligence suit brought by Rosina and Nathan Gibson against Chandler Leasing Corporation, Coca Cola Bottling Company of Miami, and Harrison M. Ross, Jr. resulted in a jury verdict for the plaintiffs. The appellants challenged the verdict on three grounds: improper admission of
• Osgood Indus., Inc. v. Schlau
  654 So. 2d 959· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-04-07 ·cited 4×
  Defendants appealed a directed verdict against them on the seat belt defense in a personal injury case arising from a car accident. The court held that defendants presented sufficient prima facie evidence of an operational seat belt, and the trial court erred in granting a direct
• Thomas v. Gottlieb
  520 So. 2d 622· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-02-03 ·cited 4×
  The court reversed a judgment awarding zero damages despite evidence of permanent injury, finding that a police officer's testimony regarding the plaintiff's lack of injury complaint at the scene violated a statutory privilege.
• Clarice Stephens v. Renard
  487 So. 2d 1079· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-03-06 ·cited 4×
  Court affirmed admission of expert testimony regarding seat belt non-use to reduce damages but reversed reduction of damages for failure to obtain statutory personal injury protection.
• Volkswagen OF Am., Inc. v. Long
  476 So. 2d 1267· Fla.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case where a trial court excluded expert testimony on the "seat belt defense." The court held that while evidence of failure to wear a seat belt can be considered for damages if properly pled and proven, it was not properly raised in this spec
• DO & CO Miami Catering, Inc. v. Chapman
  899 So. 2d 1236· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-04-20 ·cited 3×
  The trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict on the seat belt defense because the defendant failed to present evidence of a causal relationship between the plaintiff's injury and the failure to wear a seat belt.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Jimenez
  870 So. 2d 831· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-08-13 ·cited 2×
  Ford Motor Company appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury case arising from a rollover of a Ford Econoline van. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's evidentiary and procedural rulings but reversed and remanded regarding two damage calculations: the failure to redu
• Smith v. Butterick
  769 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-08-09 ·cited 2×
  In a personal injury case arising from a two-vehicle automobile accident, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff passenger and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in excluding evidence supporting a seat
• Safety Kleen Corp. v. Ridley
  666 So. 2d 913· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-06 ·cited 2×
  Safety Kleen Corporation appeals a jury verdict awarding damages to Harold Ridley for injuries from an automobile accident, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that violation of Florida's seat belt statute constitutes evidence of negligence. The appella
• Ramos v. Ambu-Car OF Dade Cnty., Inc.
  627 So. 2d 1255· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-12-07 ·cited 2×
  Maria Ramos appeals a trial court order that reduced a jury's $20,000 personal injury verdict to $800 based on comparative negligence and seat belt non-use defenses. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendant failed to establish that the seat belt w
• Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Jacinta R. Massani
  627 So. 2d 1199· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-11-30 ·cited 2×
• Curtis v. Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc.
  602 So. 2d 611· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-07-01 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the jury should have considered the seat belt issue and, if reversed, the case should be remanded to strike the damage reduction related to it, not require a new trial.
• Dillinger v. Caterpillar, Inc.
  959 F.2d 430· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of seat belt non-use was harmless error, and the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's failure to use an alternative braking system was not grounds for reversal.