## Facts

- Anthony Clark drove a semitrailer truck on U.S.-223 in Lenawee County, Michigan.
- At the intersection with Treat Highway, Clark entered the intersection against a red light, collided with a van, and the van’s driver died from the crash.
- The prosecution proceeded on a theory of negligent homicide based on Clark’s ordinary negligence in failing to stop for the red light.
- The defense sought to introduce evidence that the decedent was not wearing a seat belt to argue lack of proximate cause and/or an independent intervening (superseding) cause.
- The trial court excluded the seat belt evidence and the jury convicted Clark of negligent homicide.
- Clark was sentenced to five years’ probation, with the first ninety days in jail, and appealed as of right.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a negligent homicide prosecution arising from a traffic collision, evidence that the decedent was not wearing a seat belt is admissible to contest proximate cause or to show an independent intervening cause of death.
2. Whether Michigan’s seat belt statute changes criminal-law proximate cause analysis so that seat belt nonuse can negate causation in negligent homicide.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the negligent homicide conviction.
- The court held the trial court properly excluded evidence of the decedent’s failure to wear a seat belt.
- The court concluded seat belt nonuse is not a substantial, independent intervening cause that breaks the causal chain between the defendant’s negligent driving and the victim’s death.
- The court determined the seat belt statute did not make nonuse a legally significant cause of death for purposes of criminal liability.

## Legal Principles

- Negligent homicide criminalizes an otherwise noncriminal act of ordinary negligence because it results in death.
- In homicide prosecutions, the defendant’s act must be a proximate cause of death; an independent intervening cause can relieve liability only if it is not participated in by the defendant and is not reasonably foreseeable.
- The existence of proximate cause or an independent intervening cause is generally for the trier of fact, but the court may exclude evidence that is legally irrelevant to that inquiry.
- A decedent’s contributory negligence is not a defense to negligent homicide; victim conduct is considered only insofar as it bears on the defendant’s negligence or proximate cause under criminal standards.
- Under Michigan’s seat belt statute, the duty to wear a seat belt is treated as slight and nonuse is not treated as a substantial cause of death in a traffic accident; therefore, seat belt nonuse does not constitute a superseding cause in negligent homicide.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Clark’s negligent homicide conviction, holding that evidence the victim was not wearing a seat belt was properly excluded because it could not, as a matter of law, constitute a substantial intervening cause negating proximate cause in the criminal case.


People v. Clark, 431 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)