Opinion ID: 160983
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Seatbelt Claim

Text: Plaintiff claims she has established a prima facie case that Mullins’s failure to wear a seatbelt was a proximate cause of the truck’s swerving into the construction zone after he became incapacitated. We disagree. Even if we accept plaintiff’s allegation that Mullins was not wearing a seatbelt as true, we agree with the district court that plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the accident would not have occurred but for his failure to wear a seatbelt. 12 Consequently, at best, plaintiff has only established a possibility that the accident was caused by Mullins’s failure to wear 12 We also agree with district court that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of negligence on plaintiff’s seatbelt claim under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. As the district court found, there are a number of other reasonable inferences that could explain why the truck suddenly veered off course after Mullins lost consciousness. Mullins’s failure to wear a seat belt is only one possible explanation. -16- a seatbelt. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Count 5 of plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 13 The judgment of the United States District Court is AFFIRMED . Entered for the Court Carlos F. Lucero