Failure to Wear Seatbelt Proves Fatal to Virginia Driver’s Claim

Va. Code § 65.2-306(A)(4) bars workers’ compensation claims for injuries that, inter alia, result from a claimant’s willful misconduct in refusing “to perform a duty required by statute.” In that context, a state appellate court affirmed a decision of the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Commission that denied a truck driver’s claim — he sustained serious injuries in an accident when he was ejected from his vehicle — based upon what the Commission found was the driver’s willful failure to wear his seatbelt, which is required of all drivers in the state [Mizelle v. Holiday Ice, 2020 Va. App. LEXIS 68 (Mar. 10, 2020)]. Keying on the driver’s testimony that he meant to buckle the seatbelt “at some point,” the appellate court agreed the violation was not a mere inadvertent mistake.

Background

The claimant testified that on the day of the accident, he was told the employer needed a “party trailer” of ice delivered to Smithfield, Virginia. He added that he was told that he needed to get there “in a hurry.” The driver got in the truck and did not fasten his seat belt.

The claimant acknowledged that since first obtaining his driver’s license, he had known that Virginia law required all drivers to wear seat belts. He indicated that when he initially got into the truck on the date of the accident, he didn’t buckle up immediately, but that he “intended to do so at some point.”

Within a few minutes of beginning his trip to Smithfield, the claimant lost control of the truck, crossed a median, and hit a dump truck head-on. The claimant was ejected from the truck and suffered severe injuries. When he filed a claim, the employer defended on grounds that he had failed to wear his seatbelt, a requirement of all drivers in Virginia under Va. Code § 46.2-1094.

Deputy Commissioner’s Findings

The deputy commissioner found that claimant had suffered a compensable injury by accident and that the employer had not met its burden of proving that claimant’s failure to wear the seatbelt constituted willful misconduct barring him from compensation. The deputy commissioner awarded claimant lifetime medical benefits and temporary total disability benefits.

Commission Reverses

The Commission reversed and vacated the award of benefits, finding the claimant’s willful violation of a statute had proximately caused his injuries. The Commission noted that it was uncontested that claimant knew he was required by law to use a seatbelt and was not doing so at the time of the accident. The Commission added that claimant’s failure to wear his seat belt had not been due to negligence or inattention but to willful misconduct. Specifically, the Commission found that the claimant drove the truck with knowledge that he was not wearing his seatbelt and that he needed to put it on.

Appellate Court Sustains Commission’s Finding

The appellate court observed that in order to prevail on its statutory misconduct defense, the employer was required to show four elements:

1. That the safety rule or other duty was reasonable;
2. That the rule or duty was known to the employee;
3. That the rule or duty was for the employee’s benefit; and
4. That the employee “intentionally undertook the forbidden act.”

The only element for which there was any doubt was the last, which required the employer to show that the claimant had intentional undertaken the forbidden act. The court stressed that the claimant testified that he was aware of the statutory requirement that he wear a seat belt when driving a motor vehicle. Further, he acknowledged that the requirement applied to him, and that while he intended to put it on at some point, he did not do so prior to driving the truck. The court indicated the Commission found that these circumstances established that claimant’s failure to wear his seatbelt was willful, and it had to conclude that this finding was not in error. By his own admission, said the court, claimant knew that he was forbidden to drive a motor vehicle without wearing a seat belt, and yet he “intentionally undertook the forbidden act.”

Commentary

Practitioners should note the limits of this decision. This decision does not stand for a position that claims can be denied in all cases in which the claimant fails to wear his or her seatbelt. In many instances, the employer will get tripped up on the forth element — that the employee “intentionally undertook the forbidden act.” Note that here, the claimant didn’t testify that he forgot to put on his seatbelt. He testified that he intended to put it on at some point. That important difference in his intent was the fulcrum upon which this case was decided. Had the failure merely been an inadvertent mistake, I think the outcome would have been completely different.