IRMA J. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
HOLY TEMPLE CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST, INC., APPELLEE
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.
Irma Smith was injured in a car accident and obtained a $300,000 verdict, but the jury reduced damages by 80% based on her failure to wear a seat belt. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the seat belt defense because the defendant failed to present competent evidence that the seat belt was fully operational.
The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the seat belt defense to the jury because competent evidence of operability was not established. To send a seat belt defense to the jury, the defendant must produce competent evidence that the seat belt was operational, such as evidence that it 'clicked' or was properly anchored with a functioning buckle.
[1] A defendant must present competent evidence that a seat belt was operational and that the plaintiff failed to use it to establish a seat belt defense.
[2] Evidence that a seat belt apparatus was present on a seat is insufficient, on its own, to establish the operability of the seat belt for purposes of a defense.
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“In order to send a seat belt defense to the jury, the defendant must produce competent evidence that plaintiff failed to use an operational seat belt and that non-use of the belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the plaintiff's damages.”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting seat belt defense evidence to a jury.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was a passenger injured in a collision with a vehicle owned by Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc. At trial, the defendant established tha…
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
MINER, Judge.
Appellant, Irma J. Smith, was injured when the automobile in which she was a passenger collided with an automobile owned by appellee, Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc. Although appellant brought suit and obtained a verdict, the jury found that 80% of her damages resulted from her failure to use a seat belt. On appeal, appellant argues that the jury should not have been instructed on the seat belt defense because it had not been established that appellant failed to use an available and fully operational seat belt. We agree and reverse. Appellee has filed a cross-appeal which we find to be without merit and as to which we affirm without further elaboration.
At trial, appellee established that there was a seat belt apparatus on appellant’s seat at the time of the accident. Appellant admitted not wearing her seat belt, and in fact testified that she was thankful not to have worn the belt based upon her belief that a seat belt would have caused additional injuries. No evidence was produced as to whether the seat belt was operational.
At the charge conference, appellant’s counsel opposed an instruction on the seat belt defense arguing that the defense was unavailable absent proof that appellant’s seat belt was operational. Appellee’s counsel responded that operability could be inferred from appellant’s testimony. The trial court gave the instruction despite finding “no specific statement [that the seat belts] were operational.” The jury set appellant’s damages at $300,000, but found appellant responsible for 80% of the damages due to her failure to wear a seat belt. The trial court denied appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and entered judgment for her in the reduced amount of $60,000. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.
In order to send a seat belt defense to the jury, the defendant must produce competent evidence that plaintiff failed to use an operational seat belt and that non-use of the belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of the plaintiff’s damages. Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984). What constitutes competent evidence of operability sufficient to get the question to the jury is at issue in the instant case.
In American Automobile Association v. Tehrani, 508 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), this court found that the defendant raised a jury question on operability by showing that the automobile was relatively new, in good condition, and was equipped with seat belts that “clicked.” The cases attach special significance to the “click” because the belts snapping closed is at least some evidence of operability. See DeLong v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Youngentob v. Allstate Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Other cases have adopted a similar position, refusing to submit the question of operability to the jury unless competent evidence established that at the time of the accident the belts were anchored to the vehicle body and had buckles which closed securely. See Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); DeVolder v. Sandage, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
In the instant case, there was no competent evidence presented to send the seat belt defense to the jury. Although the evidence established that a seat belt apparatus was available, there was nothing to show that appellant’s apparatus was fully operational at the time of the accident. The evidence did not establish that appellant’s seat belt “clicked,” nor was it shown that the belt was anchored to the vehicle body. Consequently, it was error to instruct the jury on the seat belt defense. Because appellant’s failure to use a seat belt was the sole basis for reducing her verdict, we remand the case for entry of a judgment for appellant for the entire verdict amount.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WIGGINTON and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc. v. Curtis, 630 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 1994)…, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla.1984). We further find that the district court’s decision to remand this cause for a new trial on both liability and damages conflicts with other district court decisions. See Smith v. Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc., 566 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990); DeLong v. Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Devolder v. Sand-age, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).2 For the reasons e…1 / 2
-
Curtis v. Bulldog Leasing Co., Inc., 602 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…seat belt issue. Previously, in Youngentob we ruled just the opposite. Other districts have ruled that a simple remand to recompute the net damages is sufficient, without requiring a new trial. See Smith v. Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc., 566 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 563 So. 2d 634 (Fla.1990); Devolder v. Sandage, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); DeLong v. Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In deviating from th…
-
Howell v. Roadrunner Trucking, Inc., 586 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…R., 547 So. 2d 669, 671 (Fla. 2d DCA), review dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989). On rehearing, appellant claims that our prior per curiam affirmance without opinion represents a conflict with Smith v. Holy Temple Church of God in Christ, Inc., 566 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Specifically, appellant argues that Smith required the appellees to establish, as part of the seat belt defense, the operability of the seat belt by showing that it clicked when fastened and that it was anchored to the vehicle.…
Authorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. & John Menninger v. Pasakarnis, 451 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1984)
- Am. Auto. Ass'n, Inc. v. Feraidoon Tehrani and Aghdas Tehrani and Saad Lorestani and Zoreh Lorestani, 508 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- DeLONG v. The Wickes Co., 545 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Youngentob v. Allstate Ins. Co., 519 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Knapp v. Shores, 550 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Devolder v. Sandage, 544 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)