Can Evidence of Improper Seatbelt Use Be Admitted at Trial?
In an appeal arising from an automobile accident wherein a driver and his wife both died after a truck went out of control and rolled over. The victims’ surviving children and co-executors of their estates (the “plaintiffs”) filed an action against Ford Motor Company and others. A jury awarded them over $24 million in compensatory damages and $1.7 billion in punitive damages.
Ford appealed the trial court’s order preventing it from presenting evidence that the victims were improperly wearing their seat belts.
Background
On April 3, 2014, the decedent was driving his 2002 Ford F-250 Crew Cab when it rolled over, killing him and his wife. In July 2016, the plaintiffs filed an against Ford and others in the State Court of Gwinnett County, asserting claims for product liability and punitive damages. Before the trial, the trial court granted several of the plaintiffs’ motions in limine, which excluded evidence or reference to the victims’ allegedly improper seatbelt use (the “Seatbelt Order”).
Ford argued that the trial court erred in entering the Seatbelt Order based on its determination that O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d) prohibited the introduction of evidence about whether the accident victims allegedly tucked the chest strap portion of their respective seatbelts under their arm instead of wearing the belts across the chest and over the shoulder.
Did the Trial Court Erroneously Resolve the Issue of Seatbelt Evidence?
Quoting an earlier case, Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller of the Georgia Court of Appeals wrote:
When we consider the meaning of a statute, we must presume that the General Assembly meant what it said and said what it meant. To that end, we must afford the statutory text its plain and ordinary meaning, we must view the statutory text in the context in which it appears, and we must read the statutory text in its most natural and reasonable way, as an ordinary speaker of the English language would. Applying these principles, if the statutory text is clear and unambiguous, we attribute to the statute its plain meaning, and our search for statutory meaning is at an end.
Indeed, “as long as the statutory language is clear and does not lead to an unreasonable or absurd result, it is the sole evidence of the ultimate legislative intent,” Judge Miller wrote.
As set forth under O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d):
The failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a seat safety belt in any seat of a motor vehicle which has a seat safety belt or belts shall not be considered evidence of negligence or causation, shall not otherwise be considered by the finder of fact on any question of liability of any person, corporation, or insurer, shall not be any basis for cancellation of coverage or increase in insurance rates, and shall not be evidence used to diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, occupancy, or operation of a motor vehicle.
Judge Miller noted that while the statute doesn’t define what it means “to wear a seat safety belt,” the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the verb “wear” as “to bear or have on the person.”
In Domingue v. Ford Motor Co. (2022), the Supreme Court of Georgia stated that “the statutory restrictions in O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1 are all predicated on the ‘failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a safety belt.’” The Supreme Court went on to state that “because the existence of seatbelts in a vehicle is something other than the failure of an occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a seat safety belt, the statute does not restrict use or consideration of that evidence.” The Supreme Court further stated:
The statute does not restrict consideration of seatbelt use. Of course, trial courts may determine, based on the relevant rules of evidence and the facts of a particular case, that evidence of a vehicle occupant’s seatbelt use is not relevant, is unfairly prejudicial, or is otherwise not admissible. Such determinations, however, are not mandated by the text of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d).
Judge Miller explained that although the Supreme Court’s statement as to the consideration of seatbelt use appeared to only be a comment in its opinion, she and the Court of Appeals nevertheless found it persuasive to the correct interpretation of the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d): if a seatbelt is not worn at all — i.e., it is not “on the person” — then the statute would exclude evidence of the complete failure to wear the belt. But if a seatbelt is indeed worn — i. e., it is on the person — but it is worn in the wrong way, then the statute doesn’t operate to exclude the evidence.
If the Legislature had intended to completely restrict all evidence concerning seat belt use, the judge reasoned that they could have easily said so. But that wasn’t the statute that they drafted.
Here, Ford sought to submit evidence that the victims allegedly tucked the shoulder straps of their seat belts under their arms instead of wearing them across their chests and shoulders. The Court of Appeals said that a person who tucks a seat belt underneath his or her arm is indeed “wearing” the belt because it is still on their person across their midsection; albeit, that person would be wearing the belt improperly.
As a result, Ford wasn’t seeking to introduce evidence that the victims had failed to “wear” the shoulder straps to their seat belts, and the Court concluded that this evidence wasn’t barred by O.C.G.A. § 40-8-76.1(d). The jury should be able to consider it in aggravation or in mitigation or for any purpose that is relevant. As a consequence, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding otherwise and excluding the evidence.
Conclusion
Upon remand, the trial court was ordered to should conduct a new trial consistent with this opinion. Prior to the new trial, the trial court was instructed to revisit the admissibility of the evidence of the decedent’s fault (excluding the seat belt evidence).
The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and the was case remanded. Ford Motor Company v. Hill, 2024 Ga. App. LEXIS 466 (Ga. App. November 1, 2024)
Contact Us
Questions about the use of seat belts in a serious car or truck accident?
Please contact any of our experienced personal injury lawyers for a free consultation. You can contact Tobin Injury Law at almost any hour of the day. Defense lawyers respond 24/7 to accidents, as do we. You can contact an Atlanta accident attorney Atlanta residents trust by calling 404-JUSTICE (404-587-8423) or using our online contact form. We offer free consultations, and we’ll be glad to answer your questions.