## Facts

- Charles T. Hutchins was injured in a two-car collision when Robert Schwartz made a left turn across Hutchins’s lane at an intersection.
- Hutchins testified he approached at about 50 mph and slowed to 40–45 mph as the speed limit dropped to 40 mph.
- Schwartz and his passenger testified Schwartz stopped and turned only when the intersection appeared clear; Hutchins and an eyewitness testified Schwartz did not stop before turning.
- Hutchins’s vehicle struck the passenger side of Schwartz’s car.
- Hutchins was not wearing a seat belt and suffered cuts to his head, bruises to his chest, knee, and wrist, and a broken big toe; the parties received emergency-room treatment.
- Hutchins sought $275,000 in compensatory damages.
- The trial court initially allowed evidence of Hutchins’s seat-belt nonuse for damages mitigation, but later granted a directed verdict on the seat-belt issue and instructed the jury to disregard all seat-belt evidence.
- The jury found Schwartz 60% negligent and Hutchins 40% comparatively negligent and awarded $1,937.09.
- The trial court denied Hutchins’s post-trial motion for JNOV and/or a new trial, found Schwartz the prevailing party for attorney’s fees, and entered related cost rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting evidence of Hutchins’s seat-belt nonuse was error and, if so, whether the later instruction to disregard cured any prejudice.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying JNOV or a new trial based on the comparative-fault allocation and the assertedly inadequate damages award.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by designating Schwartz as the prevailing party and awarding attorney’s fees.
4. Whether the trial court’s cost rulings challenged on cross-appeal were erroneous.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- The court held that seat-belt nonuse evidence may be admissible on damages, while nonuse is not negligence per se absent a mandatory seat-belt statute.
- Any potential prejudice from admitting seat-belt evidence was cured by the directed verdict and the instruction to disregard it.
- The comparative-fault allocation and damages award had evidentiary support and did not require JNOV or a new trial.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in naming Schwartz the prevailing party and awarding attorney’s fees, and it did not err in its cost determinations.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a plaintiff did not use an available seat belt can be relevant to mitigation/apportionment of damages in an automobile negligence action.
- Seat-belt nonuse is not negligence per se in the absence of a legislative mandate requiring seat-belt use.
- A curative instruction directing the jury to disregard evidence generally cures prejudice absent a showing that the verdict was actually affected.
- Denial of JNOV or a new trial is upheld if there is an evidentiary basis for the verdict and the award does not reflect passion or prejudice.
- The prevailing-party determination for attorney’s fees may consider practical success relative to the parties’ litigation positions; the trial court has broad discretion.
- Cost and fee awards are reviewed deferentially and will be affirmed absent abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court upheld a low damages verdict and comparative-fault allocation after concluding that any seat-belt evidentiary error was cured by the trial court’s instruction, and it also affirmed discretionary post-trial rulings designating the defendant as the prevailing party and sustaining the fee and cost awards.


Hutchins v. Schwartz, 724 P.2d 1194 (Alaska 1986)