If you weren’t wearing a seatbelt, may you still recover damages?
You might be wondering if you have a legal right to sue and receive compensation if you weren’t wearing a seatbelt when you were hurt in a car accident (caused by the negligence of another driver). After all, your failure to use a seatbelt may have contributed significantly to your injuries, which is negligence.
The laws of the state where your case will be tried have a significant impact on whether you are entitled to damages and how much. Additionally, it relies on the particulars of your accident and its circumstances.
However, in the majority of no-seatbelt incidents, you ought to be able to file a lawsuit and obtain compensation. Because these situations can be difficult to litigate, it’s crucial that you consult with a qualified auto accident lawyer who is familiar with the legal pitfalls to avoid. To speak with a qualified lawyer in our network for a no-cost legal consultation, dial 11112222.
Let’s first examine how fault is determined in collisions where both parties contributed to the mishap.
Fundamentals of Comparative Fault and Contributory Fault
When determining how to assign culpability following an automobile accident, states use one of three fault doctrines. Therefore, if you weren’t using a seatbelt when the accident occurred, one of the following may be true:
Contributing Error
According to the contributory fault concept, you are ineligible to sue for damages after an automobile accident if you are even 1% at blame for your own injuries. For instance, the court would prevent you from seeking any kind of compensation through a lawsuit if you didn’t use a seatbelt and that negligence caused your injuries.
Because the contributory fault theory is so strict and anti-plaintiff, you should consult a lawyer frequently to make sure you are not infringing on its provisions. Even if you were acting negligently at the time of the accident, there may be ways to strategically develop the case (and present the facts) that demonstrate you are not to blame for your own injuries.
Absolute Comparative Error
You can be 99 percent at fault for your own injuries under the pure comparative fault doctrine and still be entitled to damages. No matter who is at fault, the law would not stop you from suing the defendant and demanding compensation. It’s crucial to remember that even if you can file a lawsuit and receive compensation for your losses, your share of the blame will be proportionately deducted from your damages.
How does that function?
Let’s say you weren’t buckled up when the accident happened and you suffered injuries. Due to your refusal to use a seatbelt, the court finds that you were 30% at fault. About $100,000 worth of damages are involved. You would be qualified to receive $75,000, which is equal to 70% of the total damages.
Therefore, even in jurisdictions with pure comparative blame, the defendants have a lot to gain by proving that you were also at fault because doing so can somewhat lessen their liability for damages.
Comparative Fault Modified
If you were less than 50% at blame, you can only sue and receive damages from the defendant under the modified comparative fault doctrine. You won’t be able to receive any compensation for damages if you are 50% (or more) at blame.
Thus, the modified comparative fault doctrine combines contributing fault with pure comparative fault.
Consider the scenario where you are hurt in an automobile accident and the cause of the accident was your failure to use a seatbelt. Because you would not have suffered any serious injuries if you had been wearing your seatbelt, the court determines that you were 60% at fault. You would not be able to file a case for damages under modified comparative fault. However, you would be qualified to get compensation if the judge concluded that you were 40% at blame.
Demonstrating the injury was “caused” by the defendant
Whatever the specific “doctrine” of fault that is applicable in your state, you can lower the amount of blame the court places on you by proving that the defendant’s negligence caused your injuries rather than your own negligence.
In order to make this easier to understand, let’s take a small example.
Imagine that you were not wearing your seatbelt at the time of the impact and that you were hurt in an automobile accident. You suffered many fracture fractures to your left side as a result of the defendant-driver hitting you from behind.
The defendant is now seeking to portray you as being extremely negligent because they are aware that you were not wearing a seatbelt. They’re trying to show that the reason you suffered serious injuries was because you didn’t buckle up. However, despite being negligent and perhaps irresponsible, your failure to use a seatbelt was not the direct cause of your injuries. It’s not like you were thrown out of your window when this happened.
If you had been buckled up, you would have sustained the identical sideswipe injuries. As a result, your recklessness in choosing not to use a seatbelt did not directly cause your injuries (and thus, fault cannot be allocated to you in this context).
For A Free Consultation, Speak To A Local Auto Accident Attorney
Whether or whether you were wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, the broad network of knowledgeable car accident lawyers at 11112222 are here to help.
Call us to speak with a knowledgeable accident attorney in little more than 10 minutes. There are no drawbacks to getting in touch with us to arrange an initial appointment because consultations are complimentary and private.
We are eager to speak with you.