Florida Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Florida Standard Jury Instruction 6.14, formerly governed the use of the seatbelt defense at trial and read as follows:

An additional question for your determination on the defense is whether some or all of the Plaintiff’s damages were caused by his failure to use a seatbelt. The issues for your determination on this question are whether the greater weight of the evidence shows that the automobile occupied by the Plaintiff was equipped with an available and fully operational seatbelt, that Plaintiff did not use that seatbelt, that a reasonably careful person would have done so under the circumstances, and that the Plaintiff’s failure to use the seatbelt produced or contributes substantially to producing the damages sustained by the Plaintiff.

This instruction provided the Plaintiffs the opportunity to argue the issue as to whether or not the seatbelt was available and functional. Additionally, the instruction did not contain any provisions addressing the violation of a Florida Statute as evidence of negligence.

Unfortunately, on March 27, 1997, the seatbelt defense instruction was radically changed by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corporation, 693 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1996). In Ridley, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the issue as to whether the violation of Florida Statute 316.614, governing use of a seatbelt, required the reading of Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.11, regarding the violation of a traffic regulation as evidence of negligence. The Court answered in the affirmative and ruled that Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.8A (regarding affirmative defenses) and 6.1C (addressing comparative negligence) should be read in conjunction with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.11 (regarding violation of a traffic regulation as evidence of negligence). As it stands today, the Standard Jury Instruction 4.11 regarding the Seatbelt defense reads as follows:

Florida Statute 316.614, the “Florida Safety Belt Law” provides:

(5) It is unlawful for any person eighteen years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion.

Violation of this statute is evidence of comparative negligence. It is not, however, conclusive evidence of negligence. If you find that a person alleged to have been negligent violated such a statute, you may consider the fact, together with the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether such person was negligent.

The ruling by the Court eliminated the legal argument as to whether the seatbelt was available and fully operational on the part of the Plaintiffs.

The Courts further assisted the defense regarding the seatbelt defense by eliminating the need to utilize expert witnesses to support their defense in certain circumstances. In the case of Burns v. Smith, 476 So. 278 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985), the Court ruled that the defense did not need to provide expert testimony regarding the Plaintiff’s failure to use a seatbelt as contributing to his injuries in cases where the Plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle. Counter-arguments exist to combat Burns. Specifically, in the case of Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984), the Supreme Court held that the Defendant must produce competent evidence of the causal relationship between the injury and the failure to use a seatbelt that is not uncertain, speculative or conjectural. This holding was furthered in the cases of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Smith, 565 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) and Zurline v. Levesque, 642 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), where the Courts held that expert testimony was necessary for the Defendant to raise the issue of the Plaintiff’s failure to utilize a seatbelt as a causal factor of the Plaintiff’s injuries. It is important to note that neither Smith nor Zurline involved ejections.

The Court in Ridley, did help the Plaintiffs by establishing the protocol for determining the Plaintiff’s award. The Court held that when considering the negligence of the Plaintiff, whether through the operation of his vehicle or his failure to utilize a seatbelt, the jury should be instructed to calculate a single total percentage as opposed to two separate percentages of negligence attributable to the Plaintiff for the failure to utilize a seatbelt and the Plaintiff’s operation of the vehicle.

There are still ways to counter the seatbelt defense. Despite the elimination of the legal argument regarding the functionality and availability of the seatbelt, you can still make that argument to the jury. The legislature modified Florida Statute 316.614(9), establishing that a violation of the statute is not negligence per se, nor prima facie evidence of negligence, but is only to considered in mitigation of damages as a component of comparative negligence.

As noted above, the jury instruction for Florida Statute 316.614 states, “If you find that a person alleged to have been negligent violated such a statute, you may consider the fact, together with the other facts and circumstances, in determining whether such person was negligent.” This allows the argument to be made to the jury regarding the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident occurred. This is a particularly effective argument when combined with Florida Standard Jury Instruction 4.1, which defines negligence as as the failure to use reasonable care under like circumstances.

In summary, it would be wise to vigorously defend any allegations the defense asserts of the failure to utilize a seatbelt as an affirmative defense. You should move to strike the affirmative defense, particularly if the competent evidence available to the defense at the time of answering the Complaint, namely the accident report, reflects that the Plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt. Additionally, submit to the Court the cases of Pasakarnis, Smith and Zurline, supra for the proposition that the Defendant must produce substantial, competent evidence, in the form of expert testimony, that the Plaintiff’s injuries were causally related to the failure to utilize a seatbelt. Finally, utilize creative arguments surrounding the particular facts of your case to argument that the Plaintiff wasn’t negligent based on the circumstances that existed at the time of the accident. Following the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure remind all your clients to buckle up to save you a major headache down the road.