## Facts

- A Nabors tractor–trailer driven by Lauro Bernal Garcia was traveling south on U.S. Highway 285 in rural West Texas ahead of a Chevrolet Suburban driven by Martin Soto with seven family members as passengers.
- As the Suburban attempted to pass, the tractor–trailer turned left toward an exit/turnoff and struck the Suburban, causing it to leave the roadway and roll over multiple times.
- Most occupants were ejected; one passenger (Aydee Romero) died and the other seven occupants were injured.
- The plaintiffs sued Nabors and Garcia for negligence and sought damages for death and personal injuries.
- Nabors offered evidence (including expert testimony) that seven of the eight occupants were not wearing seat belts and that nonuse contributed to the severity of injuries and the death.
- The trial court excluded all seat-belt evidence under then-existing Texas precedent barring such evidence.
- The jury found Nabors 51% responsible and Soto 49% responsible and awarded roughly $2.3 million in actual damages.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of a plaintiff’s seat-belt use or nonuse is admissible in a negligence case to apportion responsibility for the plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
2. Whether the prior categorical bar on seat-belt evidence remains valid under Texas’s proportionate-responsibility statute and after repeal of a statutory prohibition on such evidence.
3. What evidentiary limits (relevance and expert reliability) govern admission of seat-belt nonuse evidence offered to show causation of injuries and resulting damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment affirming exclusion of seat-belt evidence.
- The Court overruled the categorical prohibition on seat-belt evidence in civil cases.
- The Court held that relevant seat-belt use or nonuse evidence is admissible to apportion responsibility for a plaintiff’s injuries if the plaintiff’s conduct caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s damages.
- The Court remanded for consideration whether the proffered evidence (including expert testimony) satisfied the Texas Rules of Evidence, including reliability requirements for expert opinions, and whether exclusion was harmful.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas proportionate responsibility, the factfinder may assign responsibility based on conduct that caused or contributed to cause the harm for which damages are sought, not solely conduct causing the collision.
- Seat-belt nonuse may constitute responsibility-bearing conduct when it caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and resulting damages.
- Repeal of a statutory ban on seat-belt evidence supports applying ordinary evidentiary rules of relevance rather than a categorical exclusion.
- Seat-belt evidence is not automatically admissible; it must satisfy relevance requirements and, when offered through experts to link nonuse to injury severity, must meet expert reliability standards (Daubert/Robinson) and other evidentiary rules.
- Trial courts retain gatekeeping authority to exclude seat-belt evidence that lacks a reliable causal connection to the claimed damages or risks exclusion under applicable evidentiary doctrines.

## Conclusion

Texas law permits admission of relevant seat-belt use or nonuse evidence to apportion responsibility for a plaintiff’s injuries and damages, subject to ordinary evidentiary limits and reliable expert proof connecting nonuse to the extent of harm.


Nabors Well Servs., Ltd. v. Romero, 456 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. 2015)