32 N.E.3d 275
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On Feb. 6, 2005 a Fort Wayne police vehicle collided with the car driven by Chad Reuille; Katie Parrish was a front-seat passenger and was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected and injured.
- Parrish sued the City of Fort Wayne (the officer’s employer) for negligence in 2007; before trial she moved in limine to exclude evidence that she was not wearing a seatbelt.
- The City sought to admit nonuse of a seatbelt to prove Parrish’s contributory negligence (negligence per se under the Seatbelt Act).
- The Seatbelt Act (at the time) mandated front-seat occupants wear safety belts but included §7(a) stating failure to comply does not constitute fault under the Comparative Fault Act and generally may not be admitted to mitigate damages, with a limited products-liability exception.
- Trial court granted Parrish’s motion in limine; the City appealed interlocutorily arguing the statute could be used to show contributory negligence against a governmental defendant (not subject to the Comparative Fault Act).
Issues
| Issue | Parrish's Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence of failure to wear a seatbelt may be admitted to prove contributory negligence against a governmental defendant | Seatbelt nonuse cannot be used to prove contributory negligence or mitigation of damages | Seatbelt Act establishes statutory duty; nonuse shows negligence per se and can defeat recovery against a government defendant (Comparative Fault Act inapplicable) | The Seatbelt Act does not clearly abrogate common-law contributory-negligence rules; seatbelt nonuse may not be used to prove contributory negligence; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ingram, 427 N.E.2d 444 (Ind. 1981) (refused to allow seatbelt nonuse to limit damages; declined to judicially impose a duty to buckle absent clear legislative mandate)
- Hopper v. Carey, 716 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (analyzed seatbelt defense against governmental defendants and concluded legislature’s enactments did not clearly alter common law duty)
- St. John Town Bd. v. Lambert, 725 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (noting Comparative Fault Act does not apply to governmental entities)
- Price v. Kuchaes, 950 N.E.2d 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (explaining elements of negligence per se)
- Durham ex rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul Int’l, 745 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. 2001) (statutes in derogation of common law are construed narrowly)