| In the State of California, all occupants in | | | | fault and could serve as a bar to recovery in |
| a motor vehicle are required to wear a | | | | a personal injury action. If you are involved |
| seatbelt anytime the vehicle is in motion. | | | | in an accident through no fault of your own |
| Billboards up and down our freeways proclaim | | | | and injured, at some point, the question of |
| "Click It Or Ticket". | | | | whether you were belted will undoubtedly come |
| | | | up. |
| The fact is, seatbelts save lives! This is no | | | | |
| joke and California legislators in the last | | | | This is especially so if the injuries you |
| few years have passed legislation allowing | | | | suffered are ones that could arguably have |
| peace officers not only to cite drivers who | | | | been prevented had you been wearing your |
| fail to wear their seatbelts, but to use | | | | seatbelt. Defense attorneys are sufficiently |
| one's failure to wear a seat belt as a basis | | | | savvy to know that while their client may |
| for a traffic stop in the absence of your | | | | have been the legal cause of the accident |
| committing any other offense. Notwithstanding | | | | complained of, they may not have been the |
| the provisions of the Vehicle Code that | | | | legal cause of the injuries claimed by the |
| require use of a seatbelt when operating or | | | | plaintiff. If the injured party would not |
| riding in a vehicle, your failure to | | | | have been injured had he or she been wearing |
| buckle-up could seriously impact, if not | | | | a seatbelt, the fact that the accident was |
| limit your right to recovery in a personal | | | | the fault of the defendant is of little to no |
| injury action if involved in an accident. As | | | | consequence. The injuries suffered were a |
| a matter of law, one who is negligent in the | | | | direct result of the injured party's failure |
| operation of their vehicle is liable for all | | | | to wear his or her seatbelt. That being the |
| damage caused thereby. It is well known that | | | | case, the injured party is precluded from |
| everyone operating a vehicle on our roadways | | | | recovering anything for these injuries. This |
| has an obligation to exercise due care so as | | | | concept is not new however, with a new set of |
| to avoid causing an unreasonable risk of harm | | | | jury instructions recently adopted which more |
| to others. The breach of this duty | | | | clearly spell out the law in this regard, |
| constitutes negligence. | | | | jurors now have little difficulty grasping |
| | | | this concept and have, of late, been more apt |
| Little known is the fact that everyone | | | | to deny recovery to a plaintiff where it is |
| operating a vehicle on our roadways or | | | | shown that their injuries resulted from their |
| traveling as a passenger in a vehicle on our | | | | own negligence in failing to buckle-up. At |
| roadways has a duty to avoid creating an | | | | EISENBERG LAW GROUP, we encourage everyone to |
| unreasonable risk of harm to themselves. The | | | | buckle up and drive safely. |
| breach of this duty constitutes comparative | | | | |