Bus feedback5

More and more state legislatures are enacting mandatory seatbelt laws for drivers of automobiles. Many of the statutes state that if an occupant of the car (driver or otherwise) is not wearing a seatbelt at the time of an automobile accident, then that occupant may not recover civil damages from the party who caused or created the accident. What public policy reason would be behind such a law? Would this law be effective and achieve its goal to any degree?

1.

I believe that Laws should be in Place for seat belts to be worn. i have know relatives and friends that have passed away from car accidents due to no seat belts. Seat belts can save lives and they can save loss of money and time. in the occurrence of an accident if a person is hurt or injured from no seat belt it can be because a passenger was not wearing one and flew forward hitting the driver. Drivers or passenger with no seat belts should not be compensated for their fault of not wearing it. Accidents will happen and it is our responsibility to wear our seat belts. If a child was injured because the parent didn't buckle them up it should be the parents fault for being lazy or careless. however i know in some cases not wearing a seat belt makes no difference like in my situation as an active duty member if i were to pass away in a car accident and i was ruled to not be wearing my seat belt my Life insurance would still pay my beneficiaries my life insurance money, even if it was my fault for not wearing a seat belt. It should be every ones responsibility as drivers or passengers to wear seat belts and i believe that a law for seat belts make a difference in people lives.

http://www.benefits.va.gov/INSURANCE/sgli_myths_rumors.asp

feed back for #1:

In a sense I agree with this law. In most aspects we can assume that laws were created in order to afford some type of protection against something or to prevent injury. In a number of states it is the law to wear your seatbelt either while driving or riding in a car. Just like with abiding by any law it is a choice. If a person chooses not to abide by the law they must also suffer the consequences when an accident happens; even if the accident was not their fault.

I believe that the public policy reason behind this law would be contributory negligence. Even though it was not the plaintiffs fault in the original cause of the accident the injuries sustained could have been minimized if the plaintiff would have had a seatbelt on. Though I believe in the concept of this law, I do believe it is a little harsh to say that no civil damages may be recovered at all. The fault of the accident should still fall on the defendant but some type of damages should be worked out in spite of the accident.

Due to the severity of contributory negligence I believe I side more with comparative negligence. Though I believe that consequences should be suffered if a person chooses to neglect the laws, I do not believe that all compensation to a plaintiff should be dismissed because a plaintiff may have contributed to the injuries; but were not the original cause. Nevertheless, I feel that both forms of public policies concerning negligence can be very effective in helping to deter people from breaking the law.

Feed back # 2: