Spier v. Barker
323 N.E.2d 164, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt is not negligence per se and cannot be used to establish contributory negligence, but it may be considered by a jury to reduce the plaintiff's damages under the doctrine of avoidable consequences if the defendant proves the seat belt would have prevented some or all of the injuries.
Facts:
- On March 10, 1970, plaintiff Spier was driving her 1964 Ford convertible on New York State Route 31.
- Spier slowed her vehicle and began to make a left turn onto an intersecting road.
- As she turned, her car was struck by a tractor-trailer, operated by the defendants, which was attempting to pass her in the opposite lane.
- Spier's automobile was equipped with seat belts, but she was not wearing one at the time of the collision.
- As a result of the impact, Spier was ejected from her vehicle.
- After she was ejected, her own car rolled over her, pinning her legs under the left rear wheel and causing serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Spier sued the defendants in the Supreme Court, Madison County, the state's trial court of general jurisdiction.
- At trial, the defendants presented expert testimony that Spier's injuries would have been minor had she worn a seat belt.
- The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, finding both parties negligent.
- Spier appealed the resulting judgment to the Appellate Division, Third Department, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Spier was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
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 use an available seat belt constitute negligence that can be used to bar recovery entirely or to mitigate the amount of damages awarded?
Opinions:
Majority - Gabrielli, J.
No, the failure to wear a seat belt does not constitute negligence that can bar recovery, but yes, it can be considered in mitigation of damages. Nonuse of an available seat belt is not contributory negligence that affects the liability determination, but it is a factor a jury may consider in reducing a plaintiff's damages if the defendant proves that the use of the seat belt would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The court rejected the argument that nonuse is negligence per se, as no statute requires seat belt use. It also rejected the contributory negligence theory, reasoning that this doctrine applies only when a plaintiff's conduct contributes to causing the accident itself, not when it merely enhances the severity of injuries. The court adopted a third approach based on the doctrine of avoidable consequences, or the duty to mitigate damages. While this doctrine traditionally applies to post-accident conduct, the court extended it to the pre-accident context of seat belt use, calling it a unique and readily available means for an occupant to minimize damages. The burden of proof rests entirely on the defendant to demonstrate with competent evidence a causal link between the nonuse of the seat belt and the enhanced injuries.
Analysis:
This decision established the 'seat belt defense' in New York law, creating a new precedent that influenced other jurisdictions. By framing the issue as one of mitigation of damages rather than contributory negligence, the court prevented a plaintiff's recovery from being completely barred while still holding them partially responsible for the extent of their injuries. This ruling created a unique pre-accident application of the avoidable consequences doctrine, placing a significant evidentiary burden on defendants to prove what injuries would have been avoided. The case represents a judicial compromise that encourages personal safety without treating the failure to use a safety device as a cause of the underlying accident.
