ATLANTA (Legal Newsline) - When a Georgia woman's airbag didn't deploy during a 2020 crash, she hit her head on the windshield and sued Ford, which figured it had the ultimate defense: She wasn't even wearing her seatbelt.
Citing federal guidance, the company pointed out that air bags are considered "supplemental protection and are designed to work best in combination with seat belts." The State requires their use by front-seat passengers.
The Georgia Supreme Court, however, wouldn't let Ford mention it - not in motions submitted to the trial judge or even a jury, had a trial occurred. Now, Republican-led legislation in the state would give automakers the right to point out when a car-crash plaintiff wasn't wearing their seatbelt, and it's passed unanimously in the state Senate.
But it's running out of time in the House, which has 101-78 GOP majority and is set to adjourn on March 28 following a 10 a.m. floor session. Other bills could take priority during the session, such as sports-betting, immigration and transgender athletes.
SB 547 passed the Senate a month ago but a substitute bill has only been favorably reported by a House committee since then. It's unclear whether a vote will happen, as House Majority Leader Chuck Efstration and the bill's House sponsor Clay Pirkle did not respond to requests for comment.
The seatbelt ruling was one of many that have led to Georgia courts' disintegrating reputation in the civil justice world. Ford has been one of the companies hurt most, having been forced to settle the seatbelt case last year for likely more than it would have cost had it been allowed to attribute some fault to the plaintiff who didn't buckle up.
A jury in the state has also socked it with a $1.7 billion verdict after an F-250 rolled over in a crash that killed a married couple.
Attorney Lee Mickus wrote in 2022 for the Washington Legal Foundation that the seatbelt ruling put the legislature on notice to fix the so-called seatbelt gag rule.
"To be sure, some of us have serious concerns about the constitutionality of a statute that strips from a defendant the ability to present evidence that could be critical to its ability to present a defense of a product it designs and manufactures," wrote Mickus, of the Denver office of Evans Fears & Schuttert.
The ensuing legislation would require the use of seatbelts and failure to do so could "be considered in any civil action as evidence admissible on the issue of failure to mitigate damages, assumption of risk, apportionment of fault, negligence, comparative negligence, contributory negligence or causation."
Currently, Ford and others are only allowed to present evidence there were functioning seatbelts in their vehicles and not whether plaintiffs were using them.
"A jury must be able to consider the effectiveness and usage of each component of the vehicle's restraint system," Ford's lawyers wrote in the seatbelt case.
"Indeed, under Georgia law a jury is supposed to consider that and more in its risk/utility balancing."