DO & CO Miami Catering, Inc. v. Chapman
Docket: No. 3D04-2351
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 20, 2005; Florida; State Appellate Court
DO. CO Miami Catering, Inc. appeals a final judgment in a negligence case brought by Craig Chapman, who sustained a herniated disc when a DO. CO truck, operated by an employee, collided with his vehicle. DO. CO contended that Chapman's injury was due to a preexisting degenerative condition and that his failure to wear a seat belt contributed to the injury. Chapman, however, testified that he was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident and questioned the conflicting hospital records. At trial, Chapman successfully moved for a directed verdict to strike DO. CO's seat belt defense, arguing that the company failed to provide evidence linking his injury to any seat belt non-use. DO. CO countered that it was not obligated to present such evidence. The trial court granted the directed verdict in favor of Chapman. On appeal, DO. CO raised three issues, of which the court found only the directed verdict on the seat belt defense warranted discussion. The court referenced the landmark case Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, which assigns the defendant the burden of proving that the plaintiff did not use an available seat belt, that such failure was unreasonable, and that there was a causal link between the failure and the injuries. The court noted that DO. CO did not introduce evidence establishing this causal relationship, thereby affirming the trial court's decision. The ruling reaffirmed that while failure to wear a seat belt can be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, it does not exempt a defendant from proving causation, as established in Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp. The court reiterated that strategic choices in defense do not relieve a party of the burden of proof. Consequently, the court upheld the final judgment in favor of Chapman, emphasizing that without evidence of negligence on his part, the directed verdict was appropriate.