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