Title: Morast v. James
Citation: 304 Or. 571, 748 P.2d 84
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: December 30, 1987

748 P.2d 84 (1987)
304 Or. 571
Jacqueline MORAST, Respondent On Review,
v.
Shirley A. JAMES, Petitioner On Review,
v.
Daniel R. Abel, Third-Party Defendant.
CC 16-84-08083/CA A40260/SC S34543.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted December 3, 1987.
Decided December 30, 1987.
*85 Louis L. Kurtz, of Luvaas, Cobb, Richards &amp; Fraser, P.C., Eugene, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
J. Michael Alexander, of Burt, Swanson, Lathen, Alexander &amp; McCann, Salem, argued the cause and filed a response to the petition for respondent on review.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff was injured when the automobile in which she was riding was struck by an automobile driven by defendant. She was not using an available safety belt at the time of the collision. At trial, defendant presented expert testimony that plaintiff's use of the available safety belt would have reduced, or entirely eliminated, plaintiff's injuries. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff, but awarded no damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that evidence of nonuse of an available and fully operational safety belt is not admissible to prove that plaintiff unreasonably failed to mitigate her damages. Morast v. James, 87 Or. App. 368, 742 P.2d 665 (1987). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals, but for reasons different than expressed in its opinion.
Plaintiff alleged that the collision was caused by defendant's negligent failure to stop at a red light. Defendant asserted that she was not negligent and, as her first affirmative defense, alleged:
The trial court instructed the jury:
and that:
Plaintiff excepted to the instruction both before and after it was submitted to the jury:
The instruction was erroneous. This safety belt defense is one of comparative fault, not mitigation of damages. Dahl v. BMW, 304 Or. 558, 748 P.2d 77 (1987) (decided this date).
*86 The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. On retrial, the trial judge should submit to the jury the safety belt defense as a question of comparative fault in accordance with our decision in Dahl v. BMW, supra.