Opinion ID: 1136194
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evolution of the Seat Belt Defense [4]

Text: We also hold, consistent with the language of section 316.614(10), that the failure to wear a seat belt should be properly raised by alleging the failure and its contributing effect to a claimant's damages as an issue of comparative negligence. We acknowledge that there has been some confusion and misunderstanding as to the nature of the so-called seat belt defense and confusion as to the actions of this Court and the legislature on this issue. For that reason, we believe it may be helpful to review the development of the law on the use of seat belts. The seat belt defense has been described as an attempt to prove that the non-use of a functional and available restraint system by the plaintiff either caused or measurably worsened the plaintiff's injuries that resulted from the defendant's actions, and based on that non-use (even though the non-use preceded and did not cause or contribute to the accident), the plaintiff's recoverable damages should be barred or reduced. Alvin S. Hyde, The Seat Belt Defense 5 (1985). This defense had been discussed and rejected in the district courts as early as 1966. See Brown v. Kendrick, 192 So.2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). [5] We first approved the seat belt defense in Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla.1984). Prior to Pasakarnis, we considered a number of issues regarding automobile safety and design, a manufacturer's liability, and negligence. See, e.g., Auburn Mach. Works Co. v. Jones, 366 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1979) (rejecting patent danger doctrine); West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla.1976) (imposing strict liability against manufacturers); Ford Motor Co. v. Evancho, 327 So.2d 201 (Fla.1976) ( see discussion, infra ); Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So.2d 386 (Fla.1975) (abolishing the no-contribution among tortfeasors rule); Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So.2d 431 (1973) (adopting doctrine of comparative negligence). These cases formed a backdrop for our subsequent consideration of the seat belt issue. For example, in Evancho we held automobile manufacturers could be held liable in automobile collision cases for injuries which resulted from defects in design or manufacturing. Adopting the rationale of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, we noted that the intended use [of an automobile] cannot be carried out without encountering in varying degrees the statistically proved hazard of injury-producing impacts of various types. Evancho, 327 So.2d at 204 (quoting Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495, 501-02 (8th Cir.1968)). Further, we found that [a] frequent and inevitable contingency of normal automobile use will result in collisions and injury producing impacts. Id. Based upon these findings, we imposed a duty on automobile manufacturers to use reasonable care in designing and manufacturing automobiles to eliminate the risk of foreseeable injury from such impacts.