JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. BOX 12549 

Austin, TX. 7071% 2549 

512/475-2501 

Telex Qlo/a74-1367 

Telecopier 51214750266 

714 Jackson, suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 752024506 

2141742-9944 

4924 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso, TX. 799052793 

915/5333484 

/-, 

01 Texas. Suite 7M) 

Houston, TX. 77002-3111 

7131223-5886 

808 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-347s 

SW47-5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 79501-1885 

5121992-4547 

2M) Main Plaza, Suite 4W 

San Antonio, TX. 79205.2797 

512,225-4191 

An Equal OpportunityI 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General 6f Texas 

December 31, 1985 

Honorable Gibson II. (Gib) Lewis 

Speaker 

Texas House of Relwesentatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 7fi769 

Opinion No. JM-419 

Re: Whether a physician who 

grants to an individual a medical 

exemption from wearing a seat 

belt under article 6701d, section 

107c, V.T.C.S., may be liable in 

the event of injury 

Dear Speaker Lawis;: 

You ask sewral questions about the new seat belt law. Acts 

1985, 69th Leg., <:h. 804, at 6062 (to be codified at art. 6701d. 

§107C, V.T.C.S.). The law provides that, as a general rule, persons 

riding in the frcsnt seat of a passenger car must wear a seat belt. 

The law takes intcm account, however, the possibility that a person may 

not be able to wsr a seat belt for medical reasons by providing as 

follows: 

(f) . . . [The seat'belt requirement] does not 

apply tu a person who possesses a written statement frlnn a licensed physician stating that for 

medical treasons the person is unable to wear a 

safety telt. 

(g) It is a defense to prosecution . . . that 

the perwn presents to the court, not later than 

the IOil day after the date of the offense, a 

statement from a licensed physician stating that 

for medical reasons the person is unable to wear a 

safety belt. 

V.T.C.S. art. 6701d, §107C(f) and (g). You ask the following 

questions in regard to those provisions: 

1. If a person who wears no seat belt is 

injured in an auto accident, does the physician 

who isswd the person a medical exemption letter 

face any civil liability? 

2. If so, will a release from liability, 

signed lqr the person seeking the exemption, be 

sufficient to protect the physician from liability 

p. 1913 
. 

Honorable Gibson D. (Gib) Lewis - Page 2 (JM-419) 

connected with tin auto injury where the failure of 

the parson to w(!ar a seat belt becomas an issue? 

Article 6701d, sactl3n 107C. does not contain any provision 

providing for immunity E:com civil liability for a physician who 

provides a written statemc!nt that a person cannot wear a seat belt for 

medical reasons. The stBl:ute does, however, contain the following 

provision: 

Use or nonuse of a safety belt is not 

admissible evidence in a civil trial. 

V.T.C.S. art. 6701d, §107C(j). As a practical matter, this rule would 

make it extremely difficult for a person to prove a claim of negligence against a physician who had provided a statement of medical 

exemption. 

If a person claimed tlat a physician who has provided a statement 

of medical exemption was :!iable for injuries that person suffered in 

an automobile accident, the physician's liability would depend on the 

plaintiff's ability to pro're the elements of negligence. Generally, a 

finding of liability baslid on negligence requires proof that the 

defendant breached a duty of acting with ordinary care and that such 

breach was the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff. -- See Rosas 

v. Buddies Food Store, 5111 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. 1975); Lumpkins v. 

Thoqtpson. 553 S.W.2d 949, !I52 (Tex. Cfv. App. - Amarillo 1977, writ 

ref d n.r.e.). Questions of failure to exercise ordinary care and 

questions of proximate cause are generally questions of fact to be 

answered by a jury. Blank.6 v. -- Southland Hotel, 229 S.W.2d 357, 361 

(Tex. 1950); Clark v. Wawner, 452 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex. 1970). -- 

Pour second question is whether a release from the person seeking 

the exemption would protect: a physician from liability. The validity 

of a release depends on the circumstances surrounding the particular 

release. See Atkins V. WorS,le, 300 S.W.2d 688, 703 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Dallas 195rwrit ref'd n.17x). Therefore, we cannot give a definitive response to your question. 

SUMMARY 

The law does not explicitly make physicians 

immune from liability for negligence In providing 

a person a statement of exemption from the mandatosy seat belt law. The validity of a release 

depends on the drcumstances of the particular 

case. 

%Jzou$(& 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 1914 
Honorable Gibson D. (Gib) Lewis - Page 3 (m-419) 

JACK HIGH'fOWER 

First Assistant Attorney Gmeral 

NARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorne:y General 

ROBERT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney fGenera1 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Sarah Woelk 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1915