LAW V. SUPERIOR COURT
755 P.2d 1135 (1988)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated a protective order, which
precluded discovery concerning Harder's (P) seat belt use in a personal injury action. Law
(D) appealed.
FACTS: D was driving her parents' car when she pulled in front of Harder's (P), who
swerved violently to avoid a collision. This evasive maneuver overturned P's vehicle. P and
his wife were not wearing their seat belts and were thrown from their car. Ps suffered
severe orthopedic injuries as a result of the accident. Ps sued D. D sought information
concerning Ps' use and experience with seat belts and shoulder restraints. P objected and D
moved to compel discovery. The trial judge denied the motion and issued a protective order.
D filed a special action petition. The court of appeals vacated the trial judge's protective
order and held that evidence of seat belt nonuse was admissible so long as D could
demonstrate a causal relationship between the nonuse and the injuries. The court concluded
that under the doctrines of avoidable consequences and mitigation of damages, motorists were
responsible to take reasonable pre-accident measures to prevent or reduce damages from
foreseeable injury. Failure to avoid or mitigate foreseeable damages would result in a
corresponding reduction in the damages awardable. The court found that the absence of a
mandatory state seat belt law did not negate the duty to mitigate damages. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
