Is Seat Belt Evidence Admissible in Ohio Crashworthiness Case?
Ohio law is clear that non-use of a seat belt is not admissible in most cases. However, there are exceptions. This brief note identifies the primary case on point addressing this type of evidence in an air-bag non-deployment case.
In Gable v. Village of Gates Milles, the Ohio Supreme Court addressed the issue whether under O.R.C. 4513.263, evidence of seat belt non-use was admissible in an air bag claim. The court found that the claims alleged an “enhancement of injury” and that the allegations were “crashworthiness” claims under Leichtamer. As such, non-use of a seat belt, while generally not admissible, is admissible in crashworthiness claims, including air bag non-deployment cases.
Consequently, before accepting representation in an air-bag non-deployment case, you should carefully evaluate whether the occupant was indeed belted. Even if the accident report indicates belt use or non use, you should perform your own independent analysis. Often there may be load marks or other identifying evidence that supports the use of the belt. On the other hand, a lack of load marks and an injury pattern inconsistent with belt use may indicate the occupant was not actually belted, despite the occupant’s statement or police officer notation. Given that this evidence will be admissible and used for comparative purposes, this evidence may prevent a claim from moving forward under a crashworthiness theory in an air bag non-deployment case.
Notwithstanding, some air bag modules can recognize the non-use of the seat belt which may add sensitivity to the system. In those types of cases, a well qualified expert should be retained early in the case to evaluate whether the deployment would have made a difference in the injury. The analysis can be complicated and may require vehicle inspection and surrogate analysis, as well as additional testing and research.
- 103 Ohio St. 3d 449 (2004)
- 67 Ohio St.2d 456 (1981) (primary opinion on “crashworthiness” principle in Ohio)