Change provisions relating to admissibility of evidence of use of an occupant protection system or a three-point safety belt system
Summary
LB132 would change Nebraska’s rules of evidence in civil cases involving motor vehicle injuries. Under the bill, evidence that a person was not wearing an occupant protection system or three-point safety belt at the time of injury would generally not be admissible to prove liability, proximate cause, or mitigation in a civil proceeding. The bill also allows that evidence to be admitted for mitigation purposes, but only with a cap: it could not reduce a plaintiff’s recovery by more than five percent.
The measure amends existing Nebraska statutes governing the admissibility of seat belt and occupant restraint evidence and repeals the current section being replaced. In practical terms, it would limit how much a defendant in a civil lawsuit could rely on a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt to reduce damages, while still preserving a narrow role for that evidence in mitigation analysis.
Impact
LB132 would alter Nebraska civil evidence law by restricting the use of nonuse of seat belts or occupant protection systems in personal injury litigation. It would affect plaintiffs and defendants in motor vehicle injury cases, attorneys, insurers, and courts applying rules on liability, proximate cause, and damages mitigation. The bill would also replace and repeal the existing statutory provision on this topic, thereby changing the governing rule for admissibility and limiting any damages reduction tied to seat belt nonuse to five percent.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no direct evidence of debate tone or stakeholder testimony. The bill’s final status as indefinitely postponed suggests it did not advance, which may indicate either lack of consensus or insufficient support. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears aimed at narrowing the evidentiary use of seat belt nonuse in a way that would likely be viewed favorably by plaintiffs’ interests and more cautiously by defendants and insurers.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the extent to which a person’s failure to wear a seat belt should affect civil liability and damages. Supporters would likely argue that nonuse should not be used to shift blame or substantially reduce recovery, while opponents may contend that it is relevant to mitigation and should be available to reduce damages more fully. The bill’s five percent cap on recovery reduction is a notable compromise point, but it also likely would be controversial because it limits the practical effect of seat belt evidence in injury cases.