## Facts

- Alyce J. Spier drove eastbound on Route 31 toward a left turn onto Camp Road near dusk in clear, dry conditions.
- Spier testified she slowed from about 40 to 20 mph, activated her left turn signal, and began turning when a tractor-trailer attempting to pass struck her vehicle.
- The tractor-trailer driver testified he moved into the passing lane well before reaching Spier, saw no turn signal or brake lights until he was very close, and gave a headlight signal while passing.
- The collision ejected Spier from her convertible; the car rolled and pinned her legs, causing serious injuries.
- Spier’s car had seat belts, but she was not wearing one at the time of the crash.
- Over objection, defendants presented expert testimony that seat-belt use would have prevented Spier’s ejection and likely prevented serious injury.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a plaintiff did not wear an available seat belt is admissible in a motor-vehicle personal-injury action.
2. If admissible, whether seat-belt nonuse affects (a) liability/right to recover or (b) only damages under mitigation/avoidable consequences.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that evidence of nonuse of an available seat belt is admissible.
- The court held that seat-belt nonuse does not affect liability for the accident or bar recovery.
- The evidence is relevant only to mitigation of damages, permitting a reduction of damages to the extent defendants prove the injuries would have been avoided or lessened by belt use.
- The court affirmed the approach that requires competent proof (typically expert testimony) linking nonuse to the nature and extent of enhanced injuries.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s failure to use an available seat belt may be considered under the doctrine of avoidable consequences solely to reduce damages for injuries shown to be avoidable.
- Seat-belt nonuse is not contributory negligence as to causing the collision and cannot be used to defeat or diminish liability.
- Defendants bear the burden to show, with competent evidence, that seat-belt use would have prevented or reduced specific injuries and to support a rational apportionment of damages attributable to nonuse.
- The rule applies to nonuse of an “available” seat belt, not to the absence of belts.

## Conclusion

The court permitted seat-belt evidence but limited its effect to damages: a plaintiff’s nonuse of an available seat belt may reduce recovery only for the portion of injuries proven to have been avoidable, without altering fault for causing the accident.


Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1974)