Court Opinion

ID: 9769146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:36:04.264177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:56.010425
License: Public Domain

GUIDUGLI, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion in all aspects except one. I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as to the admissibility of Gladys Laughlin’s (Gladys) failure to wear a seatbelt. I believe that there was sufficient evidence presented from which the jury could determine that Gladys’s failure to comply with the Jefferson County ordinance caused or enhanced her injuries. The fact that the evidence was elicited on cross-examination by Paul Laughlin’s attorney, and the fact that appellee, James E. Lamkin, did not present his own expert on this issue, does not dimmish from the fact that the jury was presented expert testimony that had Gladys been wearing her seatbelt she would not have been “banged around” or “slammed into anything.”
This testimony provided sufficient evidence that Gladys’s failure to wear a seatbelt was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Therefore, I would affirm the trial court on this issue and not disturb the jury’s apportionment determination. However, I do concur with the majority on all other issues and would remand the case based upon the inadequacy of the award relating to pain and suffering.