February 10, 2025
In 2024, the Indiana Legislature passed House Bill 1090, which significantly changed the evidence allowed in automobile negligence cases. After being signed into law by Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb, it altered how juries can consider a plaintiff’s use or non-use of a seatbelt. Before House Bill 1090 was passed, Indiana civil juries were not allowed to know if a plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt during an automobile accident. This rule applied regardless of whether the failure to use a seatbelt affected the injuries sustained, except in product liability cases involving a vehicle restraint or supplemental restraint system. House Bill 1090 broadened the exception to essentially eliminate the prohibition. The ties that bound the hands of defense counsel were removed.
Effective July 1, 2024, Indiana Code § 9-19-10-7, allows juries to now hear evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to comply with Indiana’s seatbelt requirement as evidence of that plaintiff’s failure to mitigate damages. Specifically, 9-19-10-7(c), provides:
(c) This subsection applies to a cause of action accruing after June 30, 2024. For a plaintiff who is at least fifteen (15) years of age or older at the time the cause of action accrued, evidence of a failure to comply with this chapter may be admitted in any civil action as to mitigation of damages. The defendant in such an action has the burden of proving noncompliance with this chapter and that compliance with this chapter would have reduced injuries.
I.C. § 9-19-10-7(c)(P.L. 49-2024, sec.8, eff. July 1, 2024).
According to proponents of the legislation, when Indiana first adopted its seatbelt laws in the late 1980’s, compliance was relatively low, only around 20%. Many drivers did not realize that they were now required to wear their seatbelt and others resisted the requirement. Now that the law has been in effect for more than 35 years, Hoosiers are well aware of their obligation to buckle up. The percentages on seatbelt use have increased significantly. Now over 90% of Indiana drivers wear their seatbelt or, at least, know that they are required by law to do so. As a result, the Legislature agreed that it was time to allow evidence of a plaintiff’s failure to use his/her seatbelt as a way to further encourage seatbelt use and to reduce damages that would have been avoided had the belt been buckled.
The admission of a plaintiff’s failure to use his or her seatbelt is not guaranteed. It remains subject to the judge’s discretion. Earlier versions of the Bill mandated the admission of this evidence, initially reading “must be admitted.” Later amendments changed the language to be more flexible, “may be admitted,” allowing evidence of prejudice, relevance, and other legitimate arguments to prevail. Because the defendant has the burden of proving that a plaintiff was not wearing his/her seatbelt and that its use would have reduced the injuries sustained, the use of this evidence may be unlikely in minor accident cases. However, in cases where the plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle or other similarly catastrophic matters, the evidence could have a significant impact.
Expert testimony will likely be needed in most cases. Experts in and around Indiana are already preparing to be consulted and called as witnesses. Some accident reconstruction experts have been long-time proponents of the use of this evidence. A few have shared their frustrations with the attorneys at GLM-Merrillville that they were not able to explain to the jury that the plaintiff’s death or injuries could have been avoided had “he simply been wearing his seatbelt.”
Not surprisingly, not everyone supported these changes to Indiana law and the admission of this evidence in civil cases. Some plaintiff attorneys believe this change will shift the focus away from the “real issues” in the case, such as the defendant’s negligence. They argue that it will complicate matters and require costly experts, even in cases where seatbelt use would not have affected the injuries sustained. Others, particularly defense attorneys in the commercial trucking industry, like this author, were and are strong proponents of the change. They believe that it will assist in reducing verdicts that have been on the rise in recent years. This is another necessary step towards reducing the number of “nuclear verdicts” that are entered throughout the state against commercial truck drivers and the companies for whom they work.
Irrespective of which side of the “V” you may support, the changes to Indiana’s seatbelt law are still very new. They also only apply to accidents that happened after July 1, 2024. Thus, it will likely be some time before we are able to see the true impact of the new law. At the time that this article was authored, no Indiana cases discussing the new subsection to Indiana’s seatbelt law had been published. As time passes, the introduction of evidence regarding a plaintiff’s failure to use his/her seatbelt will undoubtedly be a key topic of discussion and argument during pre-trial conferences and motion in limine hearings throughout the state. In fact, it is already being discussed at meetings of the plaintiff’s bar. Strategic plaintiff attorneys are already working on ways to avoid the introduction and presentation of this evidence.
If you are interested in the strategies that will be needed to ensure that this evidence is admitted, please contact the attorneys at the Merrillville, Indiana, office. We will be more than happy to provide you with assistance and share the insight that you have come to expect from Garan Lucow Miller P.C.
If you are interested in reading more about nuclear verdicts and when/why they are entered in Indiana, contact Jennifer Davis for additional information and stay tuned to future articles in this publication.
___
I would like to thank Joshua Matejczyk, who assisted in writing this article, and without whom the article may not have been written. Joshua Matejczyk is an associate attorney at Garan Lucow Miller, P.C., working in the Merrillville, Indiana, office.
A similar version of this article was recently published in the Lake County Bar Association newsletter.