Court Opinion

ID: 9526494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:18:48.796597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:16.434657
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RYAN, dissenting: I believe that the plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt is evidence that the jury may properly consider in determining the amount of plaintiff’s damages. I, therefore, dissent. This State has recently adopted the pure form of comparative negligence. Therefore, in considering the seat-belt defense it is not appropriate to think in terms of contributory negligence, that is, conduct on the part of the plaintiff which will defeat recovery. Under comparative negligence, we must consider plaintiff’s failure to use an available seat belt in terms of reducing the amount of the plaintiff’s damages. Some discuss plaintiff’s duty in such situations in terms of “mitigation of damages” or “avoidable consequences.” We need not try to classify plaintiff’s duty. We should simply hold that plaintiff’s recovery may be diminished to the extent that his failure to use an available seat belt contributed to his injuries. States adhering to the contributory-negligence theory have generally been unwilling to hold that plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt bars recovery. However, one commentator has stated: “There is a growing body of case authority and scholarly comment which indicates that although evidence of a failure to fasten a seat belt is inadmissible to show contributory negligence, such evidence should be admissible under a comparative negligence standard.” Miller, The Seat Belt Defense Under Comparative Negligence, 12 Idaho L. Rev. 59, 60 (1975). Also, another commentator stated: “Jurisdictions employing the standard of comparative negligence need not engage in any flights of intellectual fantasy to use the seat belt rule as a mechanism to assure the proper apportionment of damage recoveries. By its very nature, the concept of comparative negligence contemplates the inclusion of all relevant factors in arriving at the appropriate amount of damages to be recovered by each of the claimants. It must be concluded, therefore, that the advent of the comparative negligence standard, when coupled with the refined version of the reasonably prudent person standard, will ineluctably lead to the adoption of the seat belt rule as a significant element of the damage apportionment equation.” Hoglund and Parsons, Caveat Viator: The Duty To Wear Seat Belts Under Comparative Negligence Law, 50 Wash. L. Rev. 1, 14-15 (1974). In Alvis v. Ribar (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 1, this State, by judicial decision, abandoned the defense of contributory negligence and adopted the principle of pure comparative negligence. In doing so, this court made these statements: “Under a comparative negligence standard, the parties are allowed to recover the proportion of damages not attributable to their own fault. The basic logic and fairness of such apportionment is difficult to dispute.” (Emphasis added.) (85 Ill. 2d 1, 16.) “[W]e believe that the need to deter negligent parties supports the adoption of the comparative negligence doctrine in which each party would be liable for damages in direct proportion to his degree of carelessness.” (Emphasis added.) (85 Ill. 2d 1, 18.) “The ‘pure’ form of comparative negligence is the only system which truly apportions damages according to the relative fault of the parties and, thus, achieves total justice.” (Emphasis added.) (85 Ill. 2d 1, 27.) Thus, the principle underlying pure comparative negligence, as adopted in Alvis, is fairness. Damages are apportioned according to the relative fault of the parties. The parties are permitted to recover damages “not attributable to their own fault.” (Emphasis added.) 85 Ill. 2d 1, 16. It therefore appears that, to be consistent with our holding in Alvis, a plaintiff should not be permitted to recover damages brought about by his failure to wear a seat belt if a reasonably prudent person would be expected to use a seat belt under similar circumstances. The majority opinion notes that the act in effect at the time of the accident only required that automobiles be equipped with seat belts and contained no requirement that seat belts be used by the occupants. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 95^2, par. 12 — 603.) If the statute would have required the use of seat belts as it now does, that would have been a reason to consider whether the plaintiffs failure to use the seat belt constituted negligence per se. Such a statute imposes a duty on the passenger to use the seat belt. (See Kircher, The Seat Belt Defense-State of the Law, 53 Marq. L. Rev. 172, 174 (1970).) The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in Bentzler v. Braun (1967), 34 Wis. 2d 362, 149 N.W.2d 626, considered the Wisconsin statute which only required that automobiles be equipped with seat belts and did not require the passengers to use them. The court stated: “While we agree with those courts that have concluded that it is not negligent per se to fail to use seat belts where the only statutory standard is one that requires the installation of the seat belts in the vehicle, we nevertheless conclude that there is a duty, based on the common-law standard of ordinary care, to use available seat belts independent of any statutory mandate.” (34 Wis. 2d 362, 385, 149 N.W. 2d 626, 639.) Thus, the fact that there was no statutory duty to wear a seat belt (which is noted in the majority opinion) did not relieve the plaintiff of a common law duty to use ordinary care. If a reasonably prudent person, under similar circumstances, would have used the available seat belts, then the plaintiff had a duty to do so. The majority opinion states that the duty to mitigate damages applies only to those damages which arise after the injury. Under comparative negligence we have abandoned the rigid doctrines associated with contributory negligence and the fine lines of demarcation surrounding such doctrines. We should not attempt to continue to apply the same rigid limitations of those concepts designed to avoid the harshness of contributory negligence when applying the same principles under comparative negligence. The “avoidable consequences” or “mitigation of damages” principles referred to in the majority opinion were doctrines applied in jurisdictions where plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a complete defense to enable the courts to equitably separate damages attributable to the plaintiff’s conduct without completely defeating the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant. Under comparative negligence there is no longer a need or reason to define artificial lines or times beyond which the court cannot consider the doctrines of avoidable consequences or mitigation of damages as a means of equitably apportioning damages. Dean Prosser, in discussing whether plaintiff’s preinjury conduct which did not cause the accident can be considered in assessing damages, notes that “Iowa and Kansas *** have apportioned the damages, holding that the plaintiff’s recovery will be reduced to the extent that [the plaintiff’s injuries] have been aggravated by his own antecedent negligence.” Prosser continues, “This would seem to be the better view, unless we are to place an entirely artificial emphasis upon the moment of impact, and the pure mechanics of causation.” (Emphasis added.) (Prosser, Torts sec. 65, at 424 (4th ed. 1971).) In support of this proposition, Dean Prosser states: “This has been applied where plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt has not caused the collision, but has contributed to the damages from it.” Prosser, Torts sec. 65, at 424 n.75 (4th ed. 1971). The majority opinion is correct in noting that the question we are now considering has been the subject of much controversy. I am not as sure as is the majority opinion that the conclusion it has reached represents the majority view in this country, especially in pure comparative-negligence jurisdictions. Some courts that have rejected the seat-belt defense were in jurisdictions wherein contributory negligence was a defense. Some were in jurisdictions that applied a modified form of comparative negligence. In some cases the defense was rejected because of the manner in which it was raised or pleaded. See Kircher, The Seat Belt Defense — State of the Law, 53 Marq. L. Rev. 172 (1970). Regardless of where the numerical majority of jurisdictions may stand on the issue, we must not lose sight of the fact that we have only recently, in Alvis, abandoned the artificially harsh doctrine of contributory negligence. We have adopted in its stead the principle of pure comparative negligence based on the equitable and fair rationale that a party should recover for the damages caused by the other party and should not recover for the damages he himself has caused. We should not now adopt exceptions to our new doctrine of comparative negligence which will make it a little less than “pure.” Principles of law have a way of collecting exceptions to accommodate special interests. I view the majority opinion as an exception to our new doctrine which permits the plaintiff to recover more than he otherwise would be entitled to under the rationale behind the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. If, under the facts and circumstances of the case, a reasonably prudent person would have used the available seat belt in the automobile, and if the plaintiff received more severe injuries from the accident as a result of not wearing the seat belt, this is information the jury has a right to consider in assessing damages. The majority opinion refers to the fact that Public Act 83 — 1507, effective July 1, 1985, provides that failure to wear a seat safety belt in violation of the statute shall not be considered evidence of negligence and shall not diminish any recovery for damages. The majority opinion notes that this statutory provision is consistent with the holding of this opinion. We have not as yet passed on the constitutionality of Public Act 83 — 1507. It would appear that the provision just referred to is inconsistent with an earlier provision of the Act which requires each driver and front-seat passenger of a motor vehicle to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat safety belt and makes it a petty offense not to do so. Thus the legislature, in the Act, has said that it is dangerous for a passenger in an automobile not to wear a seat belt; therefore, the law requires that front-seat passengers wear seat belts or they will be fined for not doing so. However, if such a passenger is injured in an accident caused by another, the amount of damages caused by his failure to wear a seat belt (although he may be fined) cannot be deducted from his total recovery. The Act creates a duty on specified passengers to wear seat belts and enforces that duty by providing a fine for the violation. Consistency would seem to require that, in considering the question of damages, a violation of this statutory duty should at least be considered as evidence of plaintiff’s failure to act as a reasonably prudent person. Inferentially, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, in Bentzler v. Braun, considered that failure to use available seat belts, when the statute by its terms requires their use, may be negligence per se. (See also Kircher, The Seat Belt Defense — State of the Law, 53 Marq. 172, 174 (1970).) In Spier v. Barker (1974), 35 N.Y.2d 444, 323 N.E.2d 164, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, the New York Court of Appeals noted that the statute of that State does not require passengers of automobiles to wear seat belts. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to do so would not be considered by the court to be negligence per se. However, relying on section 65 of Prosser, Torts (4th ed. 1971), which I referred to above, the New York court held that the jury could consider plaintiff’s nonuse of a seat belt in assessing damages. The language of Public Act 83— 1507, which provides that the failure to wear a seat safety belt shall not be considered evidence of negligence, is similar to that found in statutes requiring seat-belt installation but not their use that have been enacted in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Virginia. See Kircher, The Seat Belt Defense-State of the Law, 53 Marq. L. Rev. 172,176 (1970). For the above reasons, I dissent from the opinion of the majority of this court. JUSTICE MORAN joins in this dissent.