Texas Supreme Court Rules Today that Non-Use of Seat Belt is Admissible in Determining Apportionment of Fault in Personal Injury Case: But it must be relevant to causation of injury: The common law rule historically in Texas has been that non-use of a seat belt by the plaintiff is not admissible for the purposes of apportioning fault in a personal injury case. The reasoning for so long has been that the non-use of a seat belt could not have caused a collision, so the evidence was legally irrelevant.
Today, the Texas Supreme Court overruled that long-standing precedent, holding that much had changed over the years. Since the common law rule’s inception, the legislature has installed a modified comparative fault scheme, the legislature repealed a statute that prohibited evidence on non-use of seat belt, and the legislature has elsewhere statutorily mandated seat-belt use. The court stated:
“These changes have rendered our prohibition on seat-belt evidence an anachronism. The rule may have been appropriate in its time, but today it is a vestige of a bygone legal system and an oddity in light of modern societal norms. Today we overrule it and hold that relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seat belts is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits.”
But the court also ruled that evidence of non-use of a seat belt may not be admissible in every case. It must first be established that the non-use is probative to the issue of the causation of the plaintiff’s injuries. For example, if the deceased’s vehicle rolls off a 100 foot cliff, causing death, the non-use of a seat belt may not be relevant to the cause of the death. Said the court:
“As with any evidence, seat-belt evidence is admissible only if it is relevant. See TEX. R. EVID. 401, 402. And relevance is the trial court’s province. See id. 104(a). The defendant can establish the relevance of seat-belt nonuse only with evidence that nonuse caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff’s injuries. And the trial court should first consider this evidence, for the purpose of making its relevance determination, outside the presence of the jury. See id. 104(c). Otherwise, the jury will have already heard evidence of nonuse before such evidence has been deemed relevant. Expert testimony will often be required to establish relevance, but we decline to say it will be required in all cases. And, of course, like any other evidence, even relevant seat-belt evidence is subject to objection and exclusion under Rule 403.”
Nabors Well Services, Ltd v. Romero (Tex., Feb 13, 2015).