 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Salaiman v. Louisiana Casino Cruises11/8/2002
Judge William F. Kline, Jr., Retired, serving Pro Tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
At issue in this appeal is whether La. R.S. 32:295, which requires that children under the age of thirteen be properly secured when riding in a vehicle, but which states that the failure to do so shall not "be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to negligence," provides tort immunity in a suit based on the failure to properly secure a child in a vehicle. The trial court concluded that the statute provided immunity. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 1999, seven-year-old Demond Simpson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Christopher Haymon. The vehicle was rear ended by a vehicle driven by Melvin Cage. Demond Simpson died from injuries sustained in the collision. His parents, Salah Salaiman and Angela Simpson, filed wrongful death and survival actions against a host of defendants, including Haymon and Patterson Insurance Company, which issued a liability policy covering the vehicle Haymon was driving. They alleged that Haymon was liable for failing to secure their son in a seat belt or safety harness and failing to take proper evasive action.
Defendants filed a motion to strike the claim based on the failure to adequately secure the child, asserting that the evidence was inadmissible under La. R.S. 32:295F. The trial court granted the motion to strike. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiffs' remaining claims against Patterson and Haymon. This appeal, taken by plaintiffs, followed.
DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statute 32:295 provides, in pertinent part:
A. Every resident of this state who transports a child or children under the age of thirteen years in a motor vehicle which is equipped with safety belts at the time of manufacture or assembly, or is currently equipped with safety belts, shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in an age or size-appropriate passenger restraint system which meets the applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect ... .
(2) The term "child restraint system" as used in this Section shall mean a lap belt, a shoulder harness, or an age- or size-appropriate child safety seat.
C. If such child is three to twelve years of age, securing the child in a lap belt or safety belt in a rear seat shall be sufficient to meet the requirements of this Section
F. In no event shall failure to wear a child passenger safety seat system be considered as comparative negligence, nor shall such failure be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to negligence, nor shall such failure be considered a moving violation.
Interpretation of statutes involves the search for the legislature's intent. La. Civ. Code arts. 1 and 2. When a law is clear and unambiguous and does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written, and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature. La. Civ. Code art. 9; Ruiz v. Oniate, 97-2412, p. 4 (La. 5/19/98), 713 So.2d 442, 444. When the language is susceptible of different meanings, however, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law. Id.
We look first to the language of the statute. The statute mandates the use of safety restraints for children in order to protect them from harm in an automobile collision. The statute protects children by precluding a tortfeasor from raising the fact that the child was not properly secured as a
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|