Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site kestrel.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!kestrel!king
From: king@kestrel.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.consumers
Subject: Re: contributory neglegence (seatbelts)
Message-ID: <1541@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 3-Oct-85 14:05:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.1541
Posted: Thu Oct  3 14:05:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 06:00:28 EDT
References: <715@ihopb.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 22
Summary: Citations?

In article <715@ihopb.UUCP>, suem@ihopb.UUCP (Sue McKinnell) writes:
> I've been reading the sealbelt vs airbags articles and have noticed
> that many people believe that although it is a good idea to hold
> nonusers of seatbelts liable for their extra injuries caused by not
> using the seatbelts, it is impossible to do so.  Well, back in 72-73
> when I was taking law school courses, there were already cases where
> people had not been fully compensated for automobile accident injuries
> because they were held to be contributorily negligent for not using
> seatbelts.  These cases were torts (civil) cases and were not rare.
> -- 
> 
> Sue McKinnell
> ...!ihnp4!ihopb!suem
> IH 6N226  x5313

I'd be interested in seeing the citations.

An Illinois court rejected contributory negligence.  Seems the
Illinois statute EXPLICITLY REJECTS this defense.  This is per the
latest ABA Journal.

-dick


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com