Failure to implement a safety belt could wear bar or limit recovery for a personal

injury action
In California, all occupants of a vehicle must wear a seatbelt anytime the vehicle is in motion. Billboards up and down our freeways proclaim "Click it or ticket". The fact is, seatbelts save lives! This is no joke and California legislators in recent years have laws allowing peace officers not only drivers who have passed the safety belts not to mention, but a problem to use a safety belt as a basis for traffic control in absence of wear of committing any other offense.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Vehicle Code that requires the use of seat belts when operating or riding in a vehicle, its failure to buckle-up Could the seriousness of not restricting the right to rest in a personal injury action when involved in a accident. As a matter of law that the negligence in the management of their vehicle is responsible for all damages resulting therefrom. And 'known to all vehicles on our roads operating system has a duty to exercise care to avoid excessive such that a danger to others. Violation of this duty is negligence. Little known is the fact that every vehicle on roads or working as a passenger in a vehicle on our roads has a duty to avoid undue risk to themselves. Violation of this duty is comparative fault and could pose an obstacle to recovery in a personal injury action.

If you are in an accident through no fault of their own wounds and involved at some point, if you are tied into question. This is especially true when the injuries were suffered what could probably be avoided, he wore a seat belt. The defenders are experienced enough to know that while their clients may have been the legal cause of the accident complained of, they should not have been the legal cause of injuries are alleged by the applicant. If the victim is injured, he or she would be wearing a seat belt, is the fact that the accident was the fault of the defendant little or no consequence. The damages were suffered were a direct consequence of the failure of the victim, his seat belt. If this is the case, recover damaged by something out of this injury. This concept is not new, but with a new set of instructions, the jury, which has recently adopted more clearly explain the law in that regard, the courts now have little difficulty understanding this concept and has recently been more appropriate for a recreation applicants deny if it is demonstrated that their injury is based on their own negligence in the absence of a buckle-up.