Posted On: December 10, 2007, 8:09 am CST

Posted By: Claims Guy

I can recall trying to use this defense as a mitigating argument back in the mid 1980's w/o success. So happy to see it only took someone 25 years to re-visit it. If there is a standard safety device in an automobile and someone chooses not to use it, they are assuming the risk of increased personal injury and companion medical and lost wage expense. They should be help personally accountable. If this were WC, the person would be denied benefits as being a "recalcitrant employee" who refused to use safety equipment. Wearing a seatbelt shouldn't fall under the realm of being a choice; it should be a requirement.