Texas jurisprudence has had a somewhat tortured history with the admissibility of evidence that a party was not wearing a seat belt. Since 1974, evidence of failure to wear a seat belt has been inadmissible.1 On February 13, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court overruled that precedent, opening the door for admissibility in Nabors Wells Services, Ltd. v. Romero.2
When the court first barred admissibility of a party's non-use of a seat belt, Texas operated under a contributory negligence regime—wherein any negligence attributable to the plaintiff would bar recovery. The court reasoned that under those circumstances (and also considering the relative rarity of seat belt use in the 1970s), evidence that a plaintiff failed to wear a seat belt should not affect his or her recovery.
In 1985, the Legislature statutorily prohibited evidence of the use or non-use of seat belts in civil cases. That law was repealed in the tort reforms of 2003, leaving the supreme court's 1974 ruling to control.
In the meantime, the legal and societal landscape changed. Contributory negligence was replaced by a comparative negligence scheme—wherein a plaintiff's negligence only reduces his or her recovery by his or her proportionate fault. Seat belt use has been legally required since the 1980s and is a routine part of daily life for drivers.
The supreme court found that these developments rendered its 1974 rule "an anachronism" and an "oddity in light of modern societal norms." Accordingly, evidence of the use or non-use of seat belts is now admissible, if relevant, to apportion responsibility in civil claims.
Footnotes
1 Carnation Co. v. Wong, 516 S.W.2d 116 (Tex. 1974).
2 No. 13-1036 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.