Opinion ID: 1175735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: (7a) Exclusion of Evidence Pertaining to Plaintiff's Failure to Use Seat Belts

Text: Plaintiff's station wagon was equipped with seat belts admittedly in good working order. She admitted that she was not using them at the time of the collision. At a hearing outside the jury's presence, defendants offered to prove by the testimony of an expert that failure to use seat belts was a misuse of the automobile and that if plaintiff had been using the seat belts at the time of the accident, her injuries would have been substantially reduced. The trial court ruled such evidence inadmissible on the ground that plaintiff's contributory negligence was not an issue. (8) Defendants concede, as indeed they must, that ordinary contributory negligence is not a defense to an action for damages based on strict liability in tort ( Luque v. McLean (1972) 8 Cal.3d 136, 145 [104 Cal. Rptr. 443, 501 P.2d 1163]); they urge, however, that since, as we pointed out in Luque, the form of contributory negligence known as assumption of risk is a defense to such an action the offered evidence was admissible on that ground. They argue that plaintiff consciously chose not to use her seat belt with the knowledge that such conduct would increase the risk of injury in the event of a collision, since she would probably be thrown about the interior of the car. In sum, defendants argue, plaintiff voluntarily and unreasonably proceeded to encounter a known danger. In Luque we said: `The only form of plaintiff's negligence that is a defense to strict liability is that which consists in voluntarily and unreasonably proceeding to encounter a known danger, more commonly referred to as assumption of risk. For such a defense to arise, the user or consumer must become aware of the defect and danger and still proceed unreasonably to make use of the product.' (Italics added.) ( Barth v. B.F. Goodrich Tire Co. (1968) 265 Cal. App.2d 228, 243....) ( Luque v. McLean, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 145.) (7b) There is no evidence in the present record showing, or from which it can be reasonably inferred, that plaintiff was aware of the defect in this case, namely the easily removable horn cap exposing sharp prongs, or that she was aware of any danger caused by such defect. The evidence offered by defendants as to plaintiff's failure to use her seat belt did not purport to show that plaintiff knew that the horn cap was defective and that her failure to use her seat belt would expose her to the risk of injury from the prongs beneath the horn cap in the event the cap itself came off. The offered evidence did not establish the defense of assumption of the risk, but at best indicated some negligence of a general nature on plaintiff's part in not using the seat belt. We conclude that the trial court properly excluded the evidence in question. [2] Defendants urge that this evidence was also admissible on the ground that it would tend to show that plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt was the proximate cause of her injuries. However, this argument amounts to nothing more than a restatement of the inadmissible defense that plaintiff's negligence in not using a seat belt contributed to or was a contributing cause of the accident. Defendants' cognate claim that the proffered evidence was relevant to prove that some of plaintiff's damages could have been avoided by reasonable action on her part is again merely another word formulation of the same inadmissible claim of contributory negligence. (9) Defendants' final claim as to the admissibility of this evidence is to the effect that it would tend to prove that the product  the station wagon  was misused. It is true as indicated earlier in this opinion that if the product is put to a use by the consumer that is not reasonably foreseeable, then strict liability should not be imposed. ( Cronin v. J.B.E. Olson Corp., supra, 8 Cal.3d 121, 126; Johnson v. Standard Brands Paint Co. (1969) 274 Cal. App.2d 331, 340 [79 Cal. Rptr. 194]; Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed. 1971) pp. 668-669.) The simple answer to defendants' argument is that the driving of an automobile without using a seat belt is an entirely foreseeable use of the vehicle.