Case Name: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. Walter Leighton LONG, et ux., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-08-29
Citations: 476 So. 2d 1267
Docket Number: No. 64785
Parties: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. Walter Leighton LONG, et ux., Respondents.
Judges: ADKINS, ALDERMAN and SHAW, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 476
Pages: 1267–1270

Head Matter:
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner, v. Walter Leighton LONG, et ux., Respondents.
No. 64785.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 29, 1985.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1985.
J. Richard Caldwell, Jr., Dennis J. Wall and Michael R. Levin of Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss and Burke, Orlando, George N. Meros, Jr. of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith and Cutler, Tallahassee, and Michael Hoenig and Myron Shapiro of Herzfeld and Rubin, New York City, for petitioner.
S.Perry Penland of Penland, Penland, Pafford and Jones, Jacksonville, for respondents.

Opinion:
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Long, 444 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), in which the First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony regarding the causal connection between Walter Long's failure to wear his seat belt and the injuries he suffered when a tire on the Volkswagen Beetle in which he was riding had a blowout and the vehicle struck a guardrail and rolled over. In so ruling, the district court relied upon the decisions of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Lafferty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 425 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), in which the Fourth District Court held that evidence concerning the failure to wear seat belts is inadmissible either as a defense to liability or as a limitation of liability. This Court subsequently quashed those decisions in Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984), and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Lafferty, 451 So.2d 446 (Fla.1984). For the reasons expressed, we approve the result reached by the district court in the instant case.
The respondent Walter Long was a passenger in the Volkswagen Beetle, which was being driven by his wife at the time of the accident. The Longs claimed damages based on negligent design, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, strict liability, and the vehicle's crashworthiness. In its answer to the complaint, Volkswagen asserted the following as affirmative defenses:
6. That at the time and place complained of, Plaintiff, WALTER LEIGH-TON LONG, or Plaintiff, FLORENCE LONG, or both of them so carelessly and negligently conducted themselves in the operation of the motor vehicle referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, or otherwise, as to proximately cause or contribute to the accident and injuries complained of, thus barring or reducing proportionately all claims for damages against this defendant on the part of plaintiffs.
7. That if any defect existed in the 1974 Volkswagen automobile referred to in the Second Amended Complaint, the condition of said automobile was not the same as it was when the automobile left the custody and control of Defendant, substantial changes or alterations having been made, which changes or alterations were the proximate cause of the defective condition, if any, in the 1974 Volkswagen automobile referred to in the Amended Complaint, thus barring or reducing proportionately all claims for damages against this defendant.
During the trial, Volkswagen presented evidence, without objection, that Long was not wearing a seat belt when the accident occurred and then attempted to introduce testimony of a crash safety expert regarding the causal connection between Long's failure to use his seat belt and his injuries. The trial court, relying upon the Fourth District Court's decisions in Lafferty and Pasakarnis, denied admission of the expert's testimony. The cause was then submitted to the jury on the issues of negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liabil ity. It was argued that the design of the steering mechanism caused the 1974 Volkswagen Beetle to understeer and oversteer and that this design defect, coupled with the vehicle's tendency to roll over, adversely affected the vehicle's maneuverability during emergency situations and resulted in the injury to Long. The crashworthiness of the interior of the automobile was not submitted to the jury in this cause. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Longs.
In our recent Pasakarnis decision, we held that
evidence of failure to wear an available and fully operational seat belt may be considered by the jury in assessing a plaintiff's damages where the "seat belt defense" is pled and it is shown by competent evidence that failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the damages.
451 So.2d at 449 (emphasis added). See also Protective Casualty Insurance Co. v. Killane, 459 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1984). The record clearly reflects that the seat belt issue was not specifically asserted as a defense either in the pleadings or by pretrial motions. We reject the argument by Volkswagen that an allegation of comparative negligence by implication includes the seat belt defense. Further, we need not address Volkswagen's assertion that the seat belt defense need not be specifically pled when the crashworthiness of the interior of the vehicle is at issue because that issue was not submitted to the jury in this cause.
Accordingly, we approve the result of the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, ALDERMAN and SHAW, JJ" concur.
EHRLICH, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BOYD, C.J. and McDONALD, J., concur.
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.