An Act Concerning Evidence Of Contributory Negligence In Personal Injury Actions.
Summary
HB 6504 would amend Connecticut law to make a person’s failure to use certain safety equipment admissible in a personal injury lawsuit as evidence of contributory negligence. Specifically, it would allow courts to consider whether an injured person was not wearing a seat safety belt, a bicyclist was not wearing protective headgear, or a motorcyclist was not wearing a protective helmet when evaluating fault in a personal injury action.
The bill does not appear to create new safety requirements or penalties for failing to use these devices. Instead, it changes the evidentiary rules in civil litigation so that nonuse of a seat belt, bicycle helmet, or motorcycle helmet could be introduced at trial and potentially reduce a plaintiff’s recovery if the jury finds the conduct contributed to the injury. The measure would affect personal injury plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and courts applying contributory negligence principles.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend section 14-100 and section 14-286d of the general statutes and add related language to the statutes governing personal injury actions. It would broaden the types of evidence admissible in civil cases by expressly allowing proof of nonuse of a seat belt, bicycle helmet, or motorcycle helmet to be considered as contributory negligence. This could influence damage awards and liability determinations in motor vehicle, bicycle, and motorcycle injury cases.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history available for this bill, so no direct public debate or formal legislative sentiment can be identified from the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to reflect a policy preference for allowing juries to consider personal safety choices when allocating fault in injury cases.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether nonuse of safety equipment should be admissible at all in personal injury litigation. Supporters would likely argue that seat belt and helmet nonuse is relevant to fault and damages, while opponents may argue that it unfairly shifts blame to injured parties, complicates trials, or creates inconsistent treatment of negligence. The bill specifically targets three groups—vehicle occupants, bicyclists, and motorcyclists—so debate would likely focus on fairness, public safety policy, and the extent to which such evidence should affect recovery.