by douglaskauwe » Sat Mar 20, 2010 05:12 am
If I get in an accident and it is my fault and one of my passengers is injuried due to him not wearing a seatbelt and is 20 years old am I still liable for his medical bills if his injury goes over what my insurance covers?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:25 pm Post Subject:
The law in MO and I think Kansas, the driver is only responsible for insurering that all passangers under the age of 16 must be restrained. So in that case, I would say the drver can be cited. Also in MO, a driver cannot be pulled over for specifically not wearing a belt.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:42 pm Post Subject: insurance
Ya know...that 'defeats the purpose' (I think..) of having seatbelts. It's like saying 'if you're 16 years old or younger, you can get injured MORE'. That's just crazy. I hope ya'll 'see my point'.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 01:08 pm Post Subject:
I see your point, however age 17 you are considered an adult in these states.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 01:13 pm Post Subject: insurance
Well...ok..however,.............you have that decision whether or not to wear a seatbelt. If an 'adult' choses NOT to, they should be ready for the 'consequences' of not doing so (and that doesn't happen very often..LOL).
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 02:06 pm Post Subject:
.
.
SD,
PA is the same way....the driver can be fined for the passenger not wearing a seat belt. So....is it possible the passenger would NOT be 'covered' because of the choice he/she had made, NOT to wear a seatbelt?
In Pa. the Seat-Belt law is an seconday offense. It can only be an "add-on" to a Primary offense. As in you are ticked for going 66 mph in a 55 zone, and if you were not wearing a Seat-Belt the officer could also charge you for not wearing a Seat-Belt. _ But_... If you go to court and the Speeding charge is thrown out, the Seat-Belt charge goes out the door with it.
Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 03:32 pm Post Subject:
.
.
Tcope's comment:
[I've added "underline" & "bold" for clarity FK.]
The OP could very well have allowed the passenger to become injured because he/she did not require them to wear a seatbelt...seat belts go a _long_ way in preventing injury. What I'm saying is that wearing a seat belt can either reduce someone's injury or prevent it all together. If the OP would have made the passenger wear his/her seatbelt, as required by law, then the passengers injuries very well could have been far less and the OP would not have to worry as much about the settlement exceeding his/her policy limits. I see this as a textbook example of _exactly_ why the driver needs to enforce this requirement.
I do believe that a large majority of the time wearing a seat-belt will help prevent and/or reduce personal injuries.
But Not All Of The Time.
FYI:
In 1972 there was a very violent one car accident with 4 occupants. I was the driver. All three passengers were thrown from the car as it Cartwheeld across a field, end over end, impacting the ground five times before sliding the rear of the car partway up a Phone Poll until the rear of the car slid past the poll landing upright on its tires and under the bent poll.
One passenger was treated & released, another had a Knee injury, and the third had lower back and pelvic injury.
I was the only one wearing a Seat-belt, which kept me in the car [straped to the seat] with my upper body violently impacting the inside of the car each time the car smashed into the ground.
Later while the doctors where trying to keep me alive my family was told they didn't expect me to live through the night.
Likely needless to say... but... they were wrong... also this experience forever changed my opinion on the value of Seat-belts. And right here let me say again... in most accidents I believe they help more than harm....... So the rest of you........ Wear your Seat-belts.
Add your comment