Hutchins v. Schwartz
724 P.2d 1194 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a personal injury action arising from a vehicle collision, a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt is relevant evidence of comparative negligence that a jury may consider for the purpose of reducing the plaintiff's damage award.
Facts:
- Robert Schwartz was driving a car with passenger Patrick Michels and approached an intersection to make a left turn.
- Charles Hutchins was driving his car towards the same intersection at approximately 40-45 mph.
- As Schwartz made the left turn, Hutchins' car collided with the passenger side of Schwartz's car.
- At the time of the collision, Hutchins was not wearing a seat belt.
- Hutchins sustained several injuries from the accident, including cuts on his head, bruises on his chest, knee and wrist, and a broken big toe.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Hutchins sued Robert Schwartz in the superior court (trial court) for $275,000 in compensatory damages.
- Hutchins filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his non-use of a seat belt.
- The trial court denied the motion, ruling the evidence could be used to argue for a reduction of damages.
- At the end of the trial, the judge granted Hutchins' motion for a directed verdict on the seat belt issue and instructed the jury to disregard that evidence.
- The jury found Schwartz 60% negligent and Hutchins 40% comparatively negligent, awarding Hutchins $1,937.09 in damages.
- Hutchins' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and/or a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- The trial court found Schwartz was the prevailing party and awarded him attorney's fees.
- Hutchins (appellant) appealed the verdict and rulings to the Supreme Court of Alaska, and Schwartz (appellee) cross-appealed.
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 a seat belt constitute relevant evidence of comparative negligence that can be introduced to apportion and potentially reduce damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, Justice
Yes. A plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt is relevant evidence for the purpose of damage reduction. The court adopts the reasoning of a minority of jurisdictions, holding that since automobile accidents are foreseeable, a reasonably prudent person would use an available seat belt to avoid aggravating potential injuries. The court rejects arguments that this issue is best left to the legislature, stating it has a duty to modernize tort law. This evidence is not a standalone 'seat belt defense' but is a relevant factor for the jury to consider under the principles of comparative negligence when apportioning damages. The key considerations are whether a reasonably prudent person would have used the seat belt and whether the plaintiff's injuries were more severe as a result of the non-use.
Analysis:
This decision aligns Alaska with a minority of states by judicially creating a duty for plaintiffs to mitigate potential damages by wearing a seat belt, even without a legislative mandate. It establishes that a plaintiff's pre-accident conduct can be considered comparative negligence if it exacerbates injuries, rather than causes the accident itself. The ruling changes the landscape of personal injury litigation in Alaska by allowing defendants to introduce evidence of seatbelt non-use, which will likely lead to increased use of expert testimony regarding the causal link between non-use and specific injuries to argue for reduced damage awards.
Unlock the full brief for Hutchins v. Schwartz