Will Seat Belts Be a Major Issue in the Tracy Morgan/Wal-Mart New Jersey Truck Accident Case?

Earlier this year, comedian and actor Tracy Morgan, along with others, filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart for serious personal injuries caused when a truck driven by a Wal-Mart employee crashed into the limousine bus they were riding in on the New Jersey Turnpike (see Wal-Mart Faces Liability in New Jersey Fatal Truck Accident that Injured Actor Tracy Morgan). The complaint, filed in federal court in New Jersey, alleges that Wal-Mart was negligent for several reasons, including placing a driver behind the wheel of its truck who had not had adequate rest time. The complaint alleges that the driver had been awake for more than 24 hours prior to the crash.

In response, Wal-Mart is claiming that Morgan and others were themselves negligent in not wearing their seat belts. Morgan has been quoted in the media as understandably upset that he is being blamed for his injuries after having the vehicle he was in struck by a semi driven by a fatigued driver. Still, the seat belt issue is one which may have to be dealt with at trial and has the potential to reduce the compensation available to Morgan, or even eliminate it altogether.

Case Raises Issues Under New Jersey Seat Belt Law

Since 2010, New Jersey law NJS 39:3-76.2f has required all occupants of a passenger vehicle to wear seat belts. However, the next section, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2g, provides several exemptions, one of which is for passenger vehicles which are not required to be equipped with seat belt systems under federal law. A threshold question may be whether the Mercedes-Benz limousine bus is a vehicle which was required by federal law to be equipped with seat belts or not.

Regardless of whether the failure to wear seat belts was a violation of state law or not, Wal-Mart’s lawyers may still claim it was a negligent act which caused or contributed to Morgan’s injuries. New Jersey is one of only a few states which allows the “seat belt defense.” In other words, the defendants are allowed to admit evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Many states have rejected this defense and do not allow seat belt evidence to be admitted in a personal injury or wrongful death case.

If Morgan is found to be negligent for not wearing a seat belt, the critical question then becomes how much of the blame for his injuries falls to him. In New Jersey, a plaintiff cannot recover any compensation if he is found to be 50% or more at fault for causing the accident or injury. If Morgan is found to be less than 50% at fault, he can still recover compensation, although the judgment will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of fault assigned to him.

Clearly, Wal-Mart should be held liable for causing the accident, and it seems likely that the passengers of the bus would have been injured even if belted, due to the fact that they were struck by an 18-wheeler in a highway truck accident. One would think that Wal-Mart is mostly to blame for the accident, but expect them to vigorously press the seat belt issue in court. It will be up to Morgan’s lawyers to present a strong case for the negligence and fault of Wal-Mart to show that they were mostly, if not completely, to blame.