TX Supreme Court Overrules Case Law & Allows Admissibility of Seat Belt Evidence to Apportion Fault

Case:Nabors Well Servs. v. Romero
Texas Supreme Court
2015 Tex. LEXIS 142 (2/13/15)

Following the Texas Supreme Court’s ruling in Carnation Co. v. Wong, 516 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. 1974), evidence of a plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt had been inadmissible in car-accident cases. At that time, under Texas law, any contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff barred recovery. The Carnation Court had sought to provide a safe harbor, reasoning a plaintiff’s recovery should not be barred for failure to use a seat belt, as such failure could only exacerbate injuries, not cause a car accident.

Forty years later, the Nabors Court noted the legislative landscape in Texas had changed drastically since the Carnation decision. Texas law now requires apportionment of fault in negligence cases, and a plaintiff’s fault will only reduce, not bar recovery (as long as the plaintiff's own responsibility does not exceed 50%). Additionally, the Court noted seat belts are now required by law. As such, the Court recognized, while “[t]he rule may have been appropriate in its time, . . .today it is a vestige of a bygone legal system and an oddity in light of modern societal norms. Today we overrule it and hold that relevant evidence of use or nonuse of seat belts is admissible for the purpose of apportioning responsibility in civil lawsuits.”

Although the Court acknowledged its ruling opens the door to a category of evidence that has never been part of negligence cases in Texas, the Court refused to “lay down a treatise on how and when such evidence should be admitted.” Nevertheless, the Court did caution the defendant can establish the relevance of seat-belt nonuse only with evidence that nonuse caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff's injuries.

Of note, Louisiana law still prohibits admissibility of evidence of seat belt nonuse in a motor vehicle accident. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:295.1(E) provides as follows: “In any action to recover damages arising out of the ownership, common maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle, failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this Section shall not be considered evidence of comparative negligence. Failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this Section shall not be admitted to mitigate damages.”