Realistically, If I crashed into you and you were NOT wearing your seat belt which caused you to be paralyzed- and you sued me, the judge should throw the case out.
Because You Chose to not wear a seat belt.
Ah,
Neverfly, has it also not been proven that wearing a kevlar vest reduces the chances that a small-to-medium calibur shot to the protected area will cause a seriour injury or death? If I shoot you in the chest, should you not be able to sue me because you chose not to wear a kevlar vest?
The purpose of a civil lawsuit is to gain restitution for damages another party is liable for. The injury may have been exacerbated by the fact that you were not wearing a seatbelt, but the injury would not have happened at all if I hadn't crossed into incoming trafic while looking for my Nirvana CD So I could figure out the words to SLTS (@Gillian from page 1; Just 'caus I've been away doesn't mean I'd let a Nirvana reference slip by
).
Now, I've given my opinion on frivolous lawsuits on here before; I'm not saying the actual damages awarded are always fair (IMHO they usually are not)...nor am I saying that people don't sue for stupid reasons. But just because you didn't take every precaution against an outcome (e.g. wearing a seatbelt) doesn't free the at-fault party from liability.*
*
As far as I know, some states DO have shared-fault laws, where liability can be broken down between both parties. For instance, if I turn right on red but get hit by oncoming traffic because someone in the right-of-way was speeding, I might be found 90% at fault for failure to yeild, but the speeder might be found 10% at fault because they were speeding. I'd assume that in those states, whether or not the non-fault injured person was wearing a seat-belt *might* come into play with the shared liability--I don't know, Ohio is not one of those states. IIRC, few states have these laws, because accidents tend to end up in fault-disputes which tie up the legal system even more.