Supreme Court of Florida

Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp.

March 27, 1997693 So. 2d 934

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the First District Court of Appeal, holding that a violation of the state seat‑belt statute is admissible as evidence of comparative negligence, that the seat‑belt defense must be raised as an affirmative comparative‑negligence defense, that Standard Jury Instruction 4.11—not 6.14—must be given, and that damages should be reduced using a single comparative‑negligence percentage.

Holding

  • Whether a violation of Florida’s seat‑belt statute may be treated as evidence of negligence under Standard Jury Instruction 4.11.. Yes; a violation of the seat‑belt statute is admissible as evidence of negligence and must be instructed under Standard Jury Instruction 4.11.
  • Whether a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt may be raised as an affirmative defense of comparative negligence.. Yes; the seat‑belt defense should be pleaded as an affirmative defense of comparative negligence.
  • Whether Standard Jury Instruction 6.14 is an appropriate substitute for Instruction 4.11 on the seat‑belt issue.. No; Instruction 6.14 cannot substitute for Instruction 4.11 because the two serve different purposes.
  • How a jury should calculate damages when a plaintiff is found negligent both in causing the accident and in failing to wear a seat belt.. The jury should calculate a single comparative‑negligence percentage that incorporates both the plaintiff’s fault in causing the accident and the fault for failing to wear a seat belt, and apply that percentage once to reduce the award.

Docket 86280

Cited authorities

  • Section 316.614, Florida Statutes
  • section 768.81(2), Florida Statutes
  • section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes
  • section 316.614, Florida Statutes
  • 49 C.F.R. § 571.208
  • 49 FR 29010
  • 50 Wash. L. Rev. 1
  • 70 Fla. B.J. 30

Cited by