• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

not at fault/no seat belt- insurance

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

U

ugotmehigh

Guest
What is the name of your state? California

vehicle 1 crossed a red light & vehicle 2 struck vehicle 1. i was a passenger in vehicle 2. i did not have my seat belt on. hospital bill is $2052. the insurance of vehicle 1 says it is only responsible for 50% of the bill because I did not have my seat belt on. Is 50% the most i can settle for?
I at least wanted to get my medical bill paid for since their client was clearly at fault.
 


that's very good that you alive :)

since you were not wearing a seatbelt that will reduce or possibly negate compensation for your medical bills. the reason why.....by not wearing a seatbelt you most likely suffered a more severe and expensive injury than you would have if you buckled up. :( im not sure if they will reduce it to 50% :confused:

in your state it's mandatory that persons over the age of 16 wear a seatbelt.

seriously start getting into the habit of putting on your seatbelt as soon as you get in the car. that and locking your doors as well
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
ugotmehigh said:
What is the name of your state? California

vehicle 1 crossed a red light & vehicle 2 struck vehicle 1. i was a passenger in vehicle 2. i did not have my seat belt on. hospital bill is $2052. the insurance of vehicle 1 says it is only responsible for 50% of the bill because I did not have my seat belt on. Is 50% the most i can settle for?
I at least wanted to get my medical bill paid for since their client was clearly at fault.

No one here can tell you that as we are not privy to the exact situation, police reports, insurance policy's,ect.........

We are not privy to the outcome of the claims, or the policy both drivers held.

Did you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt? You do realize that you contributed to your injuries, although the other party may have been at fault?

What were your injuries? Two grand in the state of CA is a emergency room visit for them to tell you you are ok.
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
jpritchett81 said:
that's very good that you alive :)

since you were not wearing a seatbelt that will reduce or possibly negate compensation for your medical bills. the reason why.....by not wearing a seatbelt you most likely suffered a more severe and expensive injury than you would have if you buckled up. :( im not sure if they will reduce it to 50% :confused:

in your state it's mandatory that persons over the age of 16 wear a seatbelt.

seriously start getting into the habit of putting on your seatbelt as soon as you get in the car. that and locking your doors as well


What is the law regarding everyone under the age of 16 in my state? That would be CA. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
Again, Do you know how to capitalize? Please state the law in regards to how in CA, under the age of 16 does not require a seatbelt.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Here is the section with reference to age 16+, other sections of the vehicle code apply to children under the age of 16 all of whom must be ratrained, but not necessiarly with "seatbelts".
Vehicle Code section 27315.

(a) The Legislature finds that a mandatory seatbelt law will
contribute to reducing highway deaths and injuries by encouraging
greater usage of existing manual seatbelts, that automatic crash
protection systems which require no action by vehicle occupants offer
the best hope of reducing deaths and injuries, and that encouraging
the use of manual safety belts is only a partial remedy for
addressing this major cause of death and injury. The Legislature
declares that the enactment of this section is intended to be
compatible with support for federal safety standards requiring
automatic crash protection systems and should not be used in any
manner to rescind federal requirements for installation of automatic
restraints in new cars.
(b) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act.
(c) (1) As used in this section, "motor vehicle" means any
passenger vehicle or any motortruck or truck tractor, but does not
include a motorcycle.
(2) Until May 1, 2000, for purposes of this section, a "motor
vehicle" also means any farm labor vehicle that was first issued an
inspection certificate under Section 31401 on or after October 1,
1999.
(3) On and after May 1, 2000, for purposes of this section, a
"motor vehicle" also means any farm labor vehicle, regardless of date
of certification under Section 31401.
(d) (1) A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway
unless that person and all passengers 16 years of age or over are
properly restrained by a safety belt. This paragraph does not apply
to the operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, when the
taxicab is driven on a city street and is engaged in the
transportation of a fare-paying passenger. The safety belt
requirement established by this paragraph is the minimum safety
standard applicable to employees being transported in a motor
vehicle. This paragraph does not preempt any more stringent or
restrictive standards imposed by the Labor Code or any other state or
federal regulation regarding the transportation of employees in a
motor vehicle.
(2) The operator of a limousine for hire or the operator of an
authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in subdivision (a) of
Section 165, may not operate the limousine for hire or authorized
emergency vehicle unless the operator and any passengers four years
of age or over and weighing 40 pounds or more, in the front seat are
properly restrained by a safety belt.
(3) The operator of a taxicab may not operate the taxicab unless
any passengers four years of age or over and weighing 40 pounds or
more, in the front seat are properly restrained by a safety belt.
(e) A person 16 years of age or over may not be a passenger in a
motor vehicle on a highway unless that person is properly restrained
by a safety belt. This subdivision does not apply to a passenger in
a sleeper berth, as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 1201 of
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
(f) Every owner of a motor vehicle, including every owner or
operator of a taxicab, as defined in Section 27908, or a limousine
for hire, operated on a highway shall maintain safety belts in good
working order for the use of occupants of the vehicle. The safety
belts shall conform to motor vehicle safety standards established by
the United States Department of Transportation. This subdivision
does not, however, require installation or maintenance of safety
belts where not required by the laws of the United States applicable
to the vehicle at the time of its initial sale.
(g) This section does not apply to a passenger or operator with a
physically disabling condition or medical condition which would
prevent appropriate restraint in a safety belt, if the condition is
duly certified by a licensed physician and surgeon or by a licensed
chiropractor who shall state the nature of the condition, as well as
the reason the restraint is inappropriate. This section also does
not apply to a public employee, when in an authorized emergency
vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section
165, or to any passenger in any seat behind the front seat of an
authorized emergency vehicle as defined in paragraph (1) of
subdivision (b) of Section 165 operated by the public employee,
unless required by the agency employing the public employee.
(h) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 42001, any
violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f) is an infraction punishable
by a fine of not more than twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense,
and a fine of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent
offense. In lieu of the fine and any penalty assessment or court
costs, the court, pursuant to Section 42005, may order that a person
convicted of a first offense attend a school for traffic violators or
a driving school in which the proper use of safety belts is
demonstrated.
(i) In a civil action, a violation of subdivision (d), (e), or (f)
or information of a violation of subdivision (h) does not establish
negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative
fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact without regard
to the violation. (j) If the United States Secretary of Transportation fails to
adopt safety standards for manual safety belt systems by September 1,
1989, no motor vehicle manufactured after that date for sale or sold
in this state shall be registered unless it contains a manual safety
belt system which meets the performance standards applicable to
automatic crash protection devices adopted by the Secretary of
Transportation pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208) as in effect on January 1, 1985.
(k) Each motor vehicle offered for original sale in this state
which has been manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, shall
comply with the automatic restraint requirements of Section S4.1.2.1
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208),
as published in Volume 49 of the Federal Register, No. 138, page
29009. Any automobile manufacturer who sells or delivers a motor
vehicle subject to the requirements of this subdivision, and fails to
comply with this subdivision, shall be punished by a fine of not
more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each sale or delivery of a
noncomplying motor vehicle.
(l) Compliance with subdivision (j) or (k) by a manufacturer shall
be made by self-certification in the same manner as
self-certification is accomplished under federal law.
(m) This section does not apply to a person actually engaged in
delivery of newspapers to customers along the person's route if the
person is properly restrained by a safety belt prior to commencing
and subsequent to completing delivery on the route.
(n) This section does not apply to a person actually engaged in
collection and delivery activities as a rural delivery carrier for
the United States Postal Service if the person is properly restrained
by a safety belt prior to stopping at the first box and subsequent
to stopping at the last box on the route.
(o) This section does not apply to a driver actually engaged in
the collection of solid waste or recyclable materials along that
driver's collection route if the driver is properly restrained by a
safety belt prior to commencing and subsequent to completing the
collection route.
(p) Subdivisions (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) shall become
inoperative immediately upon the date that the United States
Secretary of Transportation, or his or her delegate, determines to
rescind the portion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.
208 (49 C.F.R. 571.208) which requires the installation of automatic
restraints in new motor vehicles, except that those subdivisions
shall not become inoperative if the secretary's decision to rescind
that Standard No. 208 is not based, in any respect, on the enactment
or continued operation of those subdivisions.
 
--PARIDISE-- said:
Again, Do you know how to capitalize? Please state the law in regards to how in CA, under the age of 16 does not require a seatbelt.
yes i know how to capitalize. :p i just don't feel like doing it. why do you care anyway? :confused: are you grading me or something? :(

all im trying to do is help by answering posts. but since you seem to know everthing and have something negative about my answers i'll just let you do all the posting from now on......would that be okay for you? :eek:
 
Last edited:

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
jpritchett81 said:
that's very good that you alive :)

since you were not wearing a seatbelt that will reduce or possibly negate compensation for your medical bills. the reason why.....by not wearing a seatbelt you most likely suffered a more severe and expensive injury than you would have if you buckled up. :( im not sure if they will reduce it to 50% :confused:

in your state it's mandatory that persons over the age of 16 wear a seatbelt.

seriously start getting into the habit of putting on your seatbelt as soon as you get in the car. that and locking your doors as well
Your answer is only partially correct, because children under the age of 16 must also be restrained. Now I already cited the portion relating to 16 and over, now you go find the codes for child restraints including all those under 16, be specific because there are different requirements.
 
rmet4nzkx said:
Your answer is only partially correct, because children under the age of 16 must also be restrained. Now I already cited the portion relating to 16 and over, now you go find the codes for child restraints including all those under 16, be specific because there are different requirements.
yeah.....i totally forgot to put in the info about persons under 16. i didn't realize until i came back to the board later on.

okay this is for persons under 16 years of age

Section 27360 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

27360. (a) No parent or legal guardian, when present in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, shall permit his or her child or ward under the age of four years, regardless of weight, or weighing less than 40 pounds, regardless of age, to be transported upon a highway in the motor vehicle without providing and properly using, for each child or ward, a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards.

(b) No driver shall transport on a highway any child under four years of age, regardless of weight, or weighing less than 40 pounds, regardless of age, in a motor vehicle, as defined in Section 27315, without providing and properly securing the child in a child passenger restraint system meeting applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. This subdivision does not apply to a driver if the parent or legal guardian of the child is also present in the vehicle and is not the driver.

(c) (1) A first offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), except that the court may waive the fine if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he or she is economically disadvantaged and the court, instead, refers the defendant to a child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner program. If the fine is waived, the court shall nevertheless report the conviction to the department pursuant to Section 1803.

(2) A second or subsequent offense under this section is punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), no part of which may be waived by the court.

(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows:

(1) Sixty percent to county health departments where the violation occurred, to be used for a child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner program which shall include, but not be limited to, education on the proper installation and use of a child passenger restraint system. The county health department shall designate a coordinator to facilitate the creation of a special account and to develop a relationship with the municipal court system to facilitate the transfer of funds to the program. The county may contract for the implementation of the program. Prior to obtaining possession of a child passenger restraint system pursuant to this section, a person shall receive information relating to the importance of utilizing that system.

As the proceeds from fines become available, county health departments shall prepare and maintain a listing of all child passenger restraint low-cost purchase or loaner programs in their counties, including a semiannual verification that all programs listed are in existence. Each county shall forward the listing to the Office of Traffic Safety in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency and the courts, birthing centers, community child health and disability prevention programs, county clinics, prenatal clinics, women, infants, and children programs, and county hospitals in that county, who shall make the listing available to the public. The Office of Traffic Safety shall maintain a listing of all of the programs in the state.

(2) Twenty-five percent to the county for the administration of the program.

(3) Fifteen percent to the city, to be deposited in its general fund except that, if the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this amount shall be allocated to the county for purposes of paragraph (1).
 
Last edited:

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
jpritchett81 said:
yes i know how to capitalize. :p i just don't feel like doing it. why do you care anyway? :confused: are you grading me or something? :(

all im trying to do is help by answering posts. but since you seem to know everthing and have something negative about my answers i'll just let you do all the posting from now on......would that be okay for you? :eek:
Anything would be better than suffering through reading your poor grammar. You also made reference to anyone over the age of 16 in Ca. needing a seatbelt, yet you refuse to answer why the age is 16. Do you think we in Ca. let all the kids just fling about while the adults must wear seatbelts?

Let me clue you in on this, since you are acting like a 5 yr. old. ALL people must be restrained in the state of Ca., even the babies,(go figure huh?).
 

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
I see, so from the age of 4 to 16, they can dance and jump around in the car? Why are you posting all that extra babble?
 
--PARIDISE-- said:
I see, so from the age of 4 to 16, they can dance and jump around in the car? Why are you posting all that extra babble?
that's what i found on CA seatbelt laws. like i said i was just trying to help the poster. why do you have to single me out anyway???? what did i do to you?
 
U

ugotmehigh

Guest
no @ fault/no seat belt

ugotmehigh said:
What is the name of your state? California

vehicle 1 crossed a red light & vehicle 2 struck vehicle 1. i was a passenger in vehicle 2. i did not have my seat belt on. hospital bill is $2052. the insurance of vehicle 1 says it is only responsible for 50% of the bill because I did not have my seat belt on. Is 50% the most i can settle for?
I at least wanted to get my medical bill paid for since their client was clearly at fault.
police report info: This collision occurred when Vehicle 1 in violation of 21453 (a) VC (failure to stop for a red light) drove in front of Vehicle 2 who was westbound when Vehicle 2 collided into Vehicle 1.

I did not receive a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

I had a burning sensation on the outside of my head (from cuts on my head) and a headache and was examined by the paramedics. I did not got to the emergency room. I went to a local hospital the following because I still had a headache. The pain and soreness continued for 5 days and then went away. I have small scars on my head from the accident. The Insurance says they are only responsible for $1026 (50%) of the hospital because I did not have my seat belt on. Is that correct? HELP
 
Last edited:

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
jpritchett81 said:
that's what i found on CA seatbelt laws. like i said i was just trying to help the poster. why do you have to single me out anyway????

I'm not.

what did i do to you?
No, what are you doing by posting in that manner?

What you are doing is responding on a legal site and state you can't use proper grammar because,"You don't feel like it".
Tell you what, if you want to help the poster, answer his last question. Try real hard not to be lazy with the English language also.

Answer his post.
 
Last edited:

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member
ugotmehigh said:
police report info: This collision occurred when Vehicle 1 in violation of 21453 (a) VC (failure to stop for a red light) drove in front of Vehicle 2 who was westbound when Vehicle 2 collided into Vehicle 1.

I did not receive a citation for not wearing a seat belt.

I had a burning sensation on the outside of my head (from cuts on my head) and a headache and was examined by the paramedics. I did not got to the emergency room. I went to a local hospital the following because I still had a headache. The pain and soreness continued for 5 days and then went away. I have small scars on my head from the accident. The Insurance says they are only responsible for $1026 (50%) of the hospital because I did not have my seat belt on. Is that correct? HELP


Responded to your PM on the issue.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top