Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site iddic.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!iddic!dhs
From: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Seat Belts
Message-ID: <2106@iddic.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 13:31:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: iddic.2106
Posted: Tue Aug  6 13:31:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 04:52:51 EDT
References: <316@baylor.UUCP> <145@batman.UUCP> <2193@amdcad.UUCP> <1385@peora.UUCP> <1026@mhuxt.UUCP> <2104@iddic.UUCP> <795@burl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer)
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 52

In an earlier article I suggested that the concept of contributory
negligence should be applied when injuries in an accident can be
reasonably attributed to not wearing seat belts.

In article <795@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes:

>
>Suppose you are riding a motorcycle and I, in a (much safer) car,
>make a mistake which causes us to have an accident.  Under this
>proposal (it sounds like) you couldn't force me to pay for the
>permanent disability and/or pain & suffering which wouldn't have
>happened if you had been taking reasonable precaution (not riding
>a motorcycle which has no enveloping superstructure to protect
>you).
>

Of course, my proposal was to apply the concept of contribtory
negligence to seat belt usage, not motorcycle driving.  I think
that your comment bears examination.  Trying to draw a parallel
between refusing to wear seat belts and choosing a motorcycle
over an automobile is stretched.  I would accept refusing to wear
a helmet as parallel to refusing to wear a seat belt.

What you are asking me to do is to generalize or abstract the
concept of contributory negligence.  OK, here goes:

  If a safety measure is formally recognized as prudent because
  of its cost, availability, effectivness, etc., then refusal to
  use the safety measure causes the person refusing the safety
  measure to assume responsibility for damages which could
  reasonably be attributed to the failure to use the safety
  measure, even though the damage was triggered by another party.
  This requires that legal recognition must be given to the
  safety measure.  This does not generally absolve other parties
  from responsibility for the damages that they cause, they are
  absolved only of those damages which would not have occured if
  all parties had been taking reasonable precautions.

Much of this controversy has involved people trying very hard to
defend their right to do dangerous things.  They see seat belt
laws as a threat to this right, and I share their concern.  Simply
saying "I have a right to do dangerous things" doesn't cut the
mustard.  What we have to say is "I want to preserve my right to
do dangerous things, and I am prepared to accept responsibility
for my actions."  Perhaps some day an overly safety-paranoid
society will decide that riding motorcycles is "dangerous" in the
same sense as not wearing seat belts (I hope not).  If so, better
that you should be able to accept the risk (this may involve no
more than paying higher insurance premiums) and continue to ride
motorcycles.

David H. Straayer