Opinion ID: 428630
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: AMC's Seat Belt Defense

Text: 23 Although the rule in Florida is that evidence of plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt is inadmissible both as a defense on liability and as a limitation on damages ..., Lafferty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So.2d 1147, 1148 (Fla.App.1982), McLeod agreed to submit to the jury the issue of whether her failure to wear a seat belt was negligence. In addition, McLeod's expert witnesses testified that had she been wearing a seat belt, McLeod would have received more serious injuries in the accident. Thus, the jury could reasonably conclude that McLeod's failure to use her seat belt was not negligence. Any argument by AMC that McLeod's failure to wear a seat belt constitutes negligence as a matter of law is more appropriately addressed in the Florida Supreme Court or State Legislature. 24 In conclusion, therefore, we hold that McLeod presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find her Pacer's seat track assembly to be defective and a proximate cause of her injuries. We also hold that the district court properly directed the jury not to apportion damages if it found AMC's negligence to be a concurring cause of McLeod's injuries. Finally, we find ample evidence to support the jury's finding that McLeod's failure to wear her seat belt was not negligence. 25 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 26 AFFIRMED. 27 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE