Schomer v. Madigan
| Decision Date | 17 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 11093 |
| Citation | 255 N.E.2d 620,120 Ill.App.2d 107 |
| Parties | Susan Levy SCHOMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marie L. MADIGAN, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $1,150.00 for personal injuries and prosecutes this appeal seeking a new trial on the issue of damages only. It is plaintiff's contention that the court's instruction relating to the use or nonuse of seat belts was in error and that a new trial should be granted on the question of damages only. There is no cross-appeal on the question of liability.
The instruction given reads as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury that in considering the extent of the plaintiff's injury or damages you may consider, together with all other facts in evidence whether or not the plaintiff did or did not avail herself of the use of seat belts and the extent, if any, such fact had on the extent of her injury or damages.'
The plaintiff was riding in the rightfront seat of her friend's Renault when the accident with the defendant's automobile occurred. The Renault was equipped with seat belts. Its driver didn't know whether either hers or her passenger's seat belt was fastened. The plaintiff was unable to say whether the Renault was equipped with seat belts, but stated she had been told it was, or whether she did or did not have a seat belt fastened. Each side has chided the other about injecting the seat belt question into the case. As we see it, it makes no difference. The existence of the seat belts in the Renault was a fact established by the record. The issue here is not whether the presence or nonpresence of seat belts is an admissible fact, but rather whether or not the instruction relating to the seat belts should have been given under the facts in this case. We think not.
We eschew the temptation to engage in a philosophical discussion of seat belts as they relate to liability or duty. Mount v. McClellan, 91 Ill.App.2d 1, 234 N.E.2d 329 has been cited to us. When the decision in that case is honed down to its precise point, it holds only that the evidence that the plaintiff's car was not equipped with seat belts was admissible in evidence and could be considered by the jury on the question of damages only and that it was error to grant a new trial on the theory that such evidence should not have been admitted. The court was there considering a plaintiff-owner-driver and his duty as to seat belts. We do not consider the case as either authoritative, controlling or persuasive on any issue involved in this case where we deal with a passenger-plaintiff against a third party tort feasor and where we consider only the propriety of an instruction on seat belts. Our discussion of that issue is not to be construed as an implication either that there is or that there is not a duty to use seat belts by the occupant of an automobile.
The observation by the court in Mount, however, that the existence or nonexistence of seat belts and the use or nonuse of seat belts has no relevancy in determining the cause of an accident is both concise and precise. Seat belts relate themselves only to the damaging consequences of an accident. They have not been designed to prevent a collision, but are designed to minimize or prevent injuries resulting when the body of the automobile occupant is suddenly accelerated or decelerated by the impact of the collision and comes into contact with the interior of the vehicle in which he is riding. We need to remember that the conduct of the user or nonuser of a seat belt is, basically, conduct at the time such person enters the automobile because it would be at that time or quite soon thereafter when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britton v. Doehring
...v. Singleton, 247 Md. 215, 230 A.2d 629 (1967); Glover v. Daniels, 310 F.Supp. 750 (U.S.Dist.Ct.Miss.1970); Schomer v. Madigan, 120 Ill.App.2d 107, 255 N.E.2d 620 (1970); Bertsch v. Spears, 20 Ohio App.2d 137, 252 N.E.2d 194 (1969); Fontenot v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York, 217 So.......
-
Eichorn v. Olson
...by the jury on the issue of liability. No question relating to the adequacy of instructions was involved. In Schomer v. Madigan, 120 Ill.App.2d 107, 255 N.E.2d 620, the court considered a seat belt instruction similar to the one tendered in the case at bar; both of these instructions relied......
-
Dudanas v. Plate
...plaintiff's precise argument. The cases cited by plaintiff do not resolve the issue raised in this case. In Schomer v. Madigan (1970), 120 Ill.App.2d 107, 109, 255 N.E.2d 620, 621, a seat belt instruction was held to be error because the record was 'completely silent as to whether the plain......
-
Bernesak v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago
...defendant's lack of supervision of post-occurrence activities in the absence of supporting evidence, relying upon Schomer v. Madigan (1970), 120 Ill.App.2d 107, 255 N.E.2d 620 and Wong v. Richards (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 514, 294 N.E.2d 784. In contrast to the foregoing authorities there was ......