Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW
Can Not Wearing a Seat Belt Reduce Your Texas Settlement?
Yes, it can. Texas changed this rule in 2015.
Since the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Nabors Well Services v. Romero, a jury may hear that you were unbelted, when the defense proves the nonuse actually contributed to your injuries.
For decades the opposite was true, and plenty of online advice is still wrong about it.
The rule has real limits, and knowing them is how the argument gets contained.
Call (888) 713-6653 for a free review of your Texas crash. You Win or It's Free.
At-a-Glance: Seat Belt Evidence in Texas
- Since 2015, Texas juries can hear seat belt nonuse evidence (Nabors v. Romero)
- The defense must prove the nonuse actually caused or worsened the specific injuries
- Nonuse goes into the fault percentages under Texas's 51 percent bar
- Injuries a belt could not have prevented stay fully recoverable
- Texas law requires seat belts, and the traffic offense is separate from the civil rule
What Changed in 2015
For four decades, Texas courts excluded seat belt evidence entirely under a 1974 rule from Carnation Co. v. Wong. A defendant could not tell the jury the injured person was unbelted, period.
Nabors Well Services v. Romero ended that. The Texas Supreme Court held that relevant evidence of seat belt use or nonuse is admissible to apportion responsibility, provided the nonuse caused or contributed to the injuries claimed.[1]
The decision aligned the seat belt question with how Texas handles fault generally: the jury assigns percentages based on all the conduct that contributed to the harm, and a plaintiff's own choices are part of that picture.
The Limits That Keep the Argument Contained
Nabors opened a door, and it built a frame around it.
- Causation is the defendant's burden. The defense has to connect the nonuse to the specific injuries with competent proof, usually biomechanical expert testimony. An adjuster's assumption that a belt would have helped is not evidence.
- Injury by injury, not all or nothing. A belt argument cannot touch harms a belt does not prevent. The fracture from a side intrusion, the injuries in a low-speed crash where belts change little, and plenty of real-world harm stay outside the argument.
- It is a percentage, not a bar. Nonuse evidence feeds the same proportionate responsibility question as everything else. Your recovery is reduced by your assigned share and survives unless that share passes 50 percent, the math covered on our Texas 51 percent rule page.
In practice, the fight is expert versus expert. The side that works up the injury mechanics first usually frames the number.
The Traffic Law Is Separate From the Civil Rule
Texas requires seat belts for adults and proper restraints for children, and an unbelted occupant can be cited and fined. That offense is a traffic matter. The civil question, whether nonuse reduces a recovery, runs through Nabors and the fault percentages, not through the ticket.
One more distinction matters: the crash and the injuries are still the at-fault driver's responsibility. Seat belt evidence never excuses the driver who ran the light. It only bears on how the resulting harm gets divided, which is why the liability case against the driver gets built at full strength regardless.
What This Means for Your Claim
If you were belted, say so early and prove it: bruising patterns, EMS notes, and vehicle inspection all document belt use, and putting that beyond dispute removes the argument entirely.
If you were not, do not assume the claim is broken. The defense still has to buy the experts, prove the mechanics, and survive cross-examination, and the injuries a belt could not have changed remain fully recoverable. What the situation does demand is a legal team that works up the medicine and the biomechanics before the defense frames them. Our Texas car accident lawyers treat that as first-week work, not trial preparation.