Not wearing a seatbelt reduces an injury claim, and it does not end one. In New Brunswick the reduction is fixed by statute at twenty-five per cent, and the only way out of it is proof that the belt would have made no difference. In Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador there is no fixed figure, and the reduction is whatever a judge decides the failure contributed.
The driver who caused the crash is still liable, but the arithmetic changes at the end.
New Brunswick Fixes the Reduction at Twenty-Five per Cent
Section 265.2 of New Brunswick’s Insurance Act is unusual. Where a person required to wear a seat belt by section 200.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act is injured or killed in an accident while not wearing one, the damages recoverable are reduced by twenty-five per cent.
That is not a range and it is not the judge’s discretion. The province legislated the number in 1996, and the Insurance Act on the provincial site still carries it. A New Brunswick file has two outcomes on this issue and no middle: nothing, or a quarter.
The Escape Is Proof That the Belt Would Have Changed Nothing
The section reduces damages unless the injured person establishes that the failure to wear the belt did not contribute to the injury or the death. The onus sits with the plaintiff, which is the reverse of how contributory negligence normally works.
Discharging it takes engineering and medical evidence rather than argument. A rear impact that caused a crush injury to the lower leg, a rollover in which the restraint would not have altered the loading on the spine, a collision in which the seat itself failed: those are opinions from a collision reconstruction engineer and a treating specialist, obtained early, while the vehicle still exists.
Other Faults Can Push the New Brunswick Reduction Higher, Never Lower
Where the injured person also contributed in some other way, and has not shown the belt was irrelevant, subsection (2) says the reduction is determined on all the circumstances but shall not be less than twenty-five per cent.
So twenty-five is a floor once the section applies. A passenger who was unbelted and who also encouraged an impaired driver to keep driving can end up well above it.
Wearing the Belt Badly Is Treated Differently
Subsection (3) takes the fixed reduction off the table for a person who was wearing a seat belt but not wearing it properly adjusted and securely fastened. The belt tucked behind the arm, or the shoulder strap slipped off, falls outside the automatic twenty-five per cent.
That does not make it irrelevant. It moves the question back to ordinary contributory negligence, where the defence has to prove both the failure and the difference it made.
Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland Leave the Figure to the Court
Nova Scotia’s Motor Vehicle Act requires drivers and passengers to wear a seat belt, and the penalty for not doing so is a ticket. The Act contains no provision reducing damages and no percentage.
In those three provinces the argument runs under the common law and the province’s contributory negligence legislation. The defendant has to prove that the belt was not worn and that wearing it would have reduced the injury, and the court then apportions. Reductions in Canadian seat belt cases have generally been modest where the causal link was weak and larger where the medical evidence tied the injuries squarely to being thrown. How apportionment works across the region is set out in the post on a personal injury claim where you are partially at fault.
Not Wearing a Seatbelt Has to Be Proved, and So Does the Difference It Made
Outside New Brunswick, a seat belt defence has two limbs and both have to be proved. The first is that the belt was not being worn, which the defence takes from the ambulance record, the emergency room note, the police collision report and the pattern of injuries.
The second limb is the one that is often not met. The defence needs an opinion that the injuries would have been less severe with the belt on. Where the injuries came from an intrusion into the passenger compartment, or from a mechanism a restraint does not address, that opinion cannot be given and the argument fails.
Section B Benefits Are Not Touched by the Reduction
The no-fault benefits under your own policy pay medical treatment and weekly income replacement without regard to fault, and a seat belt finding does not reduce them. A seat belt finding instead reduces the award or settlement against the driver who caused the crash.
That matters most in the first year, when treatment costs are being paid out of Section B benefits and the tort claim has not yet been valued.
Children in the Vehicle Are the Driver’s Responsibility
Provincial legislation puts the duty for passengers under sixteen on the person operating the vehicle, not on the child. A child restrained improperly, or not at all, is not the author of that failure.
Where a child is injured, the claim is brought on their behalf and the seat belt argument is aimed at the adults. The mechanics of that are set out in the post on an injury claim on behalf of a child.
Helmets Attract the Same Argument for Riders and Cyclists
The same reasoning is applied to motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets. There is no fixed statutory percentage for helmets in any Atlantic province, so the defence must prove that the helmet would have reduced the specific injury.
Where the injuries are to the torso or the limbs, the argument has nowhere to go. Where there is a head injury, it becomes a contest of experts. The firm’s motorcycle accident lawyers meet it in most rider files.
The Reduction Is a Reason to Get Advice Early, Not a Reason to Stay Quiet
Injured people sometimes avoid a lawyer because they know they were unbelted and assume the claim is worthless. Seventy-five per cent of a serious claim is not a small number, and in the other three provinces the reduction may be much smaller than a quarter.
Tell your lawyer at the first meeting. Concealing it costs credibility later, and losing credibility with an adjuster or a judge does more damage than the percentage reduction itself. The firm’s car accident lawyers work out the exposure before the claim is filed.