In ‘Nabor Well Services v. Romero’ in 2015, the Texas Supreme Court upended more than 40 years of precedent when it allowed evidence of a plaintiff’s nonuse of seat belts to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery in a car crash case. This evidence is not now automatically admissible, however. The defendant must first show that the evidence is relevant, and the probative nature of the evidence must outweigh its prejudicial nature.

The Texas Supreme Court first addressed the admissibility of seat belt evidence in 1973, in Kerby v. Abilene Christian College. The Kerby court sharply distinguished between negligence contributing to causing a crash and negligence contributing to causing a plaintiff’s damages. The court excluded seat belt evidence because it reasoned that any negligence in not wearing a seat belt could not be contributory negligence that contributed to causing the crash.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]