From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

July 16, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Ontario County, Curran, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Balio, Doerr, Boomer and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's second affirmative defense, premised on plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt. Plaintiff contends that, as the operator of a tractor-trailer, he was not legally required to wear a seat belt (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 151-a, 1229-c). "The fact that the law did not require plaintiff to wear his seat belt at the time of the accident is of no moment" (Gardner v. Honda Motor Co., 145 A.D.2d 41, 47, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 715). A jury should be allowed to consider a plaintiff's failure to wear an available seat belt in assessing damages (Spier v. Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 450).


Summaries of

Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jul 16, 1993
195 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Ruiz v. Rochester Telephone Company

Case Details

Full title:JOAQUIN A. RUIZ, Appellant, v. ROCHESTER TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jul 16, 1993

Citations

195 A.D.2d 981 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 879

Citing Cases

Motelson v. Ford Motor Co.

Furthermore, the seat belt defense addresses the physical injuries a plaintiff may suffer rather than the…

Lankenau v. Boles

Here, the conflicting laws relate to whether there is a valid affirmative defense of seat belt nonuse.…