PROTECTIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND CHRISTOPHER WEHAGE, PETITIONERS,
v.
DENNIS KILLANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIAN FOR FLORENCE KILLANE, HIS WIFE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision concerning the admissibility of seat belt defense evidence in a personal injury case. Although the court disapproved the district court's legal reasoning regarding the seat belt defense, it affirmed the trial court's exclusion of such evidence because the defense was not properly pleaded or presented before trial.
A defendant may not introduce seat belt defense evidence when the defense is not specifically pleaded and not presented as an issue prior to trial. The trial court properly excluded the evidence based on inadequate pleading and procedural notice, even though seat belt evidence may be admissible when properly pled and supported by competent evidence.
[1] Evidence of a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt may be considered by the jury in assessing damages if the "seat belt defense" is specifically pled and co…
[2] A trial court correctly denies the proffer of evidence on the seat belt defense if it is not properly pled nor presented as an issue prior to trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“evidence of failure to wear an available and fully operational seat belt may be considered by the jury in assessing a plaintiffs damages where the "seat belt defense" is specifically pled and where it is shown by competent evidence that failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the damages.”
Establishes the general rule allowing seat belt defense evidence when properly pled and proven.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a personal injury case, the defendant sought to introduce evidence that the plaintiff's failure to wear an available and fully operational seat bel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Seat Belt Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Justice.
We review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in Protective Casualty Insurance Co. v. Killane, 447 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which expressly and directly conflicts with Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984), and Allstate Insurance Co. v. Lafferty, 451 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1984).
Relying on its decisions in Lafferty v. Allstate Insurance Co., 425 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and Insurance Company of North America v. Pasakarnis, 425 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the Fourth District, in the present case, held that the seat belt defense is not available to a defendant. Since the Fourth District’s decision in the present case, we have quashed its decisions in Pasakarnis and Lafferty, and we have held that evidence of failure to wear an available and fully operational seat belt may be considered by the jury in assessing a plaintiffs damages where the “seat belt defense” is specifically pled and where it is shown by competent evidence that failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the damages.
In the present case, the trial court ruled that petitioners could not introduce evidence on the seat belt because it was not specifically pled and the issue was not presented in the pretrial stipulation. The order of the trial court directing pretrial procedure required that all issues of law and fact for determination at trial be listed in the pretrial stipulation. The seat belt defense was not mentioned as a defense until the first day of trial.
The trial court correctly denied the proffer of evidence on the basis that it was not properly pled nor ever presented as an issue prior to trial. After hearing argument from both sides on this matter, the trial court explained:
[Speaking to plaintiff’s counsel who objected to the proffer.] Well, I have indicated that my feeling on that is that you would be prejudiced to the extent that if you had desired to obtain an expert and now that the Jury has been sworn and we are into the last portion of the trial, it would be well nigh impossible for you probably to obtain one.
[Speaking to defense counsel.] Let me suggest to you, Counsel, just for your own practice, at least as far as this division is concerned, if you ever have another case here and want to raise that issue, I think you could raise it, but you should raise it with specificity so everybody knows what is going on in that area.
The trial court’s denial is consistent with our holdings in Pasakarnis and Lafferty. We disapprove the district court’s finding that the pleading set forth in defendant’s answer was adequate to support introduction of evidence on the question. The seat belt defense was not mentioned in the pleadings.
Accordingly, although we disapprove the rationale of the district court’s decision as it relates to the seat belt issue, we approve the result of the district court’s decision affirming the judgment of the trial court.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDonald, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Volkswagen OF Am., Inc. v. Long, 476 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1985)…and it is shown by competent evidence that failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the damages. 451 So. 2d at 449 (emphasis added). See also Protective Casualty Insurance Co. v. Killane, 459 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1984). The record clearly reflects that the seat belt issue was not specifically asserted as a defense either in the pleadings or by pretrial motions. We reject the argument by Volkswagen that an allegation of comparative negligence by implicat…
-
Copeland v. Albertson's Inc., 947 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…cedurally defective in two respects. First, the defendants did not plead an affirmative defense based on the statute. A defendant cannot present evidence of a statutory defense unless that defense is pleaded. See Protective Cas. Ins. Co. v. Killane, 459 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla.1984) (holding that the trial court correctly denied a proffer on the statutory seat belt defense because it was not properly pleaded); Tobias v. Osorio, 681 So. 2d 905, 908 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (stating that in order for a lounge serving…
-
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Edmond Charles, 479 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ent was not in the record. Any claims relating to this agreement must be presented to the trial court. . We note in passing, however, that the plaintiffs’ reliance in their cross-appeal on the recent case of Protective Casualty Ins. Co. v. Killane, 459 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1984), is well-taken. That case specifically holds that the "seat belt defense” must be raised in the pre-trial pleadings in order to be validly considered as an issue at trial. The seat belt defense was not raised by the defendants in the inst…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 425 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Lafferty v. Allstate Ins. Co., 425 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Lafferty, 451 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1984)
- Protective Cas. Ins. Co. & Christopher Wehage v. Killane, 447 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)