Colorado Supreme Court Says Lack of Seatbelt Use Can Limit Damage Awards

By | December 6, 2007

  • December 6, 2007 at 3:15 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The seat belt provision is a great idea and a way to put some responsibility to the individual! Makes we wonder if this this is the case in all states.

  • December 7, 2007 at 9:20 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Now it just needs to be expanded to mitigate total damages. How much difigurement would have occurred had he been wearing his seatbelt?

  • December 10, 2007 at 8:09 am
    Claims Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    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.

  • August 26, 2008 at 9:43 am
    Dean says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Once again people like Dustin think everyone should tow the line for the corporations because it could hurt thier bottom lines, never mind basic civil rights. No one should required to provide financial liablity until AFTER they have damaged someone. What next firearm insurance because your gun COULD hurt/kill someone ? It is all about your precious money. Insurance companies donate millions every year to police to buy radar/laser guns to cite more drivers for doing what cops do every day illegally; with no damaged parties to boot! Insurance companies raise our rates because of the radar/laser guns they paid for! Insurance companies have willing henchmen (aka cops) on the street making people buy insurance AT GUNPOINT! And yes it is enforced with guns! They arrest you in many states, incl CO, if you don’t have proof! Besides ALL laws are ultimately enforced with guns. If not who would obey them ?

    This court case proves that laws are all about money!

  • August 27, 2008 at 11:55 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Actually Dustin, the civil lawsuit has been a basic right of most Western countries since the time of Rome. It’s one of the rights guaranteed in the Magna Carta (the right of redress). That’s one reason the Founding Fathers established the judicial branch of government – to handle lawsuits.

  • August 27, 2008 at 6:48 am
    Dustin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dean…don’t even know where to begin.

    I didn’t even bring corporations into the equation. I was thinking of the people who see $ when they are hurt. This is simply a way to limit the liability if you don’t take personal responsibility. If the carrier has to pay, so be it. What about when someone sues grandma who has the state minimum limits. Whose pocket does that cool mil come out of? That’s right….hers.

    I also didn’t realize that suing someone is a basic civil right. I am sure the founding fathers turned over in their grave when you made that statement.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*