Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co.
492 P.2d 1030 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt is inadmissible to establish contributory negligence or for the purpose of mitigating damages in a personal injury lawsuit.
Facts:
- N. Fiorito Company, Inc. was engaged in a highway improvement project on Interstate 5.
- A company dump truck, after passing an "End of Construction" sign, proceeded down a two-lane off-ramp.
- Lawrence Derheim was driving his 1959 Chevrolet behind the truck at a lawful speed.
- The dump truck, which was in the right-hand lane, initiated a wide left turn to cross the off-ramp and a median to access a parallel on-ramp.
- Derheim's vehicle, which was in the process of overtaking, collided with the left front of the turning truck.
- Derheim's car was equipped with seat belts, but he was not wearing one at the time of the collision.
- As a result of the impact, Derheim suffered a fractured right kneecap and mouth injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence Derheim sued N. Fiorito Company, Inc. in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- Before trial, the defendant sought to amend its answer to allege contributory negligence for the plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion to include the seat belt defense and granted the plaintiff's motion in limine to prohibit any mention of it at trial.
- The defendant made an offer of proof, including expert testimony that the knee injury would have been prevented by a seat belt.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Derheim.
- The defendant, N. Fiorito Company, Inc., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals, Division 2.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Washington to resolve the seat belt defense issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt constitute a defense, either as contributory negligence or for mitigation of damages, in a personal injury lawsuit?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, J.
No, a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt does not constitute a valid defense. The so-called 'seat belt defense' does not fit within traditional tort doctrines like contributory negligence, which concerns conduct contributing to the accident itself, or avoidable consequences, which applies to a plaintiff's conduct after the injury occurs. Because Washington is a contributory negligence jurisdiction where a plaintiff's fault is a complete bar to recovery, applying the defense would produce an unjust result for a victim who was not responsible for the accident. Furthermore, with no statutory duty to wear seat belts and with many older vehicles not equipped with them, allowing the defense would create unequal treatment among motorists and is a matter of public policy best left to the legislature.
Concurring - Neill, J.
No, the plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt is not a valid defense. I concur in the result because the legislature has not imposed an affirmative duty to wear seat belts, and this court should not declare a new common law duty to do so. Therefore, failing to wear a seat belt is not a breach of the plaintiff's duty to exercise reasonable care for his own behalf. However, the majority's reasoning should not be read so broadly as to relieve a plaintiff from all legal consequences of a breach of his own duties of self-protection when it leads to a divisible exacerbation of harm.
Analysis:
This decision established a bright-line rule in Washington rejecting the admissibility of the 'seat belt defense.' The court's refusal to fit the pre-accident failure to wear a seat belt into existing tort doctrines like contributory negligence or mitigation of damages created a significant plaintiff-friendly precedent. By deferring to the legislature, the court signaled that such a major shift in public policy, especially one that could act as a complete bar to recovery under the state's contributory negligence system, required legislative action. This holding would remain influential until the state adopted comparative negligence, which would provide a more flexible framework for apportioning fault for enhanced injuries.
Unlock the full brief for Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co.