Texas Injury Lawyer Blog

Experts agree that seat belts help save lives. And it is common knowledge that drivers and passengers should always wear their seat belts regardless of the length of the trip. However, what is less known is that the seat belt defense may allow a defendant in a Texas car accident case to use an accident victim’s failure to wear a seat belt against them.

The seat belt defense is really an interpretation of the rules of evidence, specifically, whether evidence of the plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt is admissible. For the most part, only relevant evidence is admissible. Most states do not allow defendants to use the seat belt defense, because they consider such evidence irrelevant. Specifically, these jurisdictions determined that whether a person is wearing a seat belt has nothing to do with whether the defendant negligently caused the accident.

Of course, defendants naturally want to introduce seat belt non-use evidence to argue that the plaintiff is responsible for their injuries, and that they should not be on the hook for damages that the plaintiff could have prevented. And, in a 2015 case, for the first time, the Texas Supreme Court held that seat belt non-use evidence was admissible, reversing a long line of decisions.

A Texas appeals court recently considered a wrongful death case in which a Texas man was killed in an accident on the job. The man was involved in a single-vehicle accident involving a 1987 Freightliner, and died shortly after the accident occurred. The man was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The employer was a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, and the plaintiff, the man’s husband, filed suit against the defendant for negligence and gross negligence. The employer argued that it was not liable because the man was intoxicated at the time of the accident. After a hearing, a trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.

Under the Texas summary judgment standard, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden to prove that there is no genuine issue of material fact on at least one essential issue and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the moving party succeeds in satisfying its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that an issue or evidence should preclude summary judgment. In addition, all motions for summary judgment must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that summary judgment should not have been granted because there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the man was legally intoxicated when the accident occurred. In support of its defense, the employer submitted an autopsy report and a toxicology report. The autopsy report showed that there was amphetamine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl in the man’s blood when he died. A doctor’s report stated that the amount found reflected a “voluntary introduction” of the drugs.

Texas drivers have a duty to drive carefully, as well as to respond to dangerous situations in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. This means that Texas personal injury plaintiffs may be able to recover compensation if another party fails to operate a vehicle with due care or act reasonably, even when that party is responding to a dangerous situation.

Under Texas law, the sudden emergency doctrine (or the imminent peril doctrine) concerns the response of a defendant to a sudden and unexpected emergency. A defendant may be protected under the doctrine only if the defendant can prove the following. First, that there was a sudden and unexpected emergency, and that someone was in actual or apparent danger of immediate injury. Second, that the defendant did not cause the sudden and unexpected emergency. Third, that the defendant acted as a reasonably careful person would have acted under the circumstances, even if another course of action would have been safer. The doctrine is applicable if a driver who was acting with reasonable care was suddenly and unexpectedly confronted by an emergency situation that the defendant did not cause. Essentially, it protects a person who acts in response to a sudden emergency, and it later becomes clear that another course of action would have avoided an injury.

However, the doctrine applies only in cases where an unexpected physical danger comes about that is so sudden that it deprives the driver of the ability to use reasonable judgment. In addition, a party cannot be protected by the doctrine if that party’s negligence caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.