 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burck v. Pederson10/11/2005
Appellant John Patrick Burck alleges that he was injured through contact with his own seatbelt in a motor-vehicle accident involving cars driven by respondents Benjamin Pederson and Edna Peterson. The district court granted respondents' motion in limine to preclude the introduction of evidence relating to appellant's use of his seatbelt under Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd.4(a) (2004), the "seatbelt gag rule." Because the court's ruling was legally dispositive of the case, the court ordered summary judgment in favor of respondents. Contending that the district court's interpretation of Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a), was in error and produced an absurd result, appellants challenge the summary judgment on appeal. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant John Patrick Burck and respondents Benjamin Pederson and Edna Peterson were driving separate cars. Peterson was in the lane adjacent to Burck, and Pederson was directly behind Burck. Peterson moved her car into Burck's lane in such a manner as to cause Burck to apply his brakes hard to avoid colliding with her. Pederson struck Burck from behind.
Burck was wearing a seatbelt. The impact of the collision caused his seat to break and collapse backward. He sustained various injuries that were treated after the accident.
About five months later, Burck began to experience abdominal pain. Ultimately, his surgeon diagnosed the problem as an abdominal hematoma, which the surgeon removed. The surgeon's opinion was that the hematoma was caused by contact with the seatbelt in the accident with the respondents. Burck sued the respondents.
The respondents moved in limine to preclude evidence of Burck's use of his seatbelt in the accident. Burck acknowledged that, without the surgeon's opinion as to the cause of the hematoma, he would have no evidence that the accident caused his abdominal injury and that, "in essence, the issue was dispositive."
The district court granted the respondents' motion, treated the matter as a summary-judgment proceeding, and ordered entry of summary judgment dismissing the case. The appellants challenge that dismissal on appeal.
ISSUE
Appellant motor-vehicle driver was wearing his seatbelt during a multiple vehicle collision. His physician would testify that contact with the seatbelt in the collision caused injury to appellant's abdomen. Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) (2004), prohibits the introduction into evidence of the fact of the use or nonuse of a seatbelt in a motor-vehicle accident.
Did the district court err by ruling that appellant is prohibited from presenting at trial his physician's opinion as to the cause of his abdominal injury ?
ANALYSIS
Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a) (2004), provides that "proof of the use or failure to use seat belts . . . shall not be admissible in evidence in any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage resulting from the use or operation of any motor vehicle."
In this personal-injury action arising from a motor-vehicle accident in which appellant John Patrick Burck alleges that he was injured through forceful contact with his seatbelt, the district court applied Minn. Stat. § 169.685, subd. 4(a), the so-called "seatbelt gag rule," so as to preclude Burck from introducing at trial evidence that his seatbelt caused one of his injuries.
With the parties' agreement, the district court treated this matter as a summary-judgment motion. On appeal from summary judgment, the interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. Marsden v. Crawford, 589 N.W.2d 804, 806 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|