In unanimously affirming the judgme

In unanimously affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Appellate Division found that the Trial Judge had correctly charged the law of negligence and contributory negligence, and then concluded as follows: "The jury, having determined that none of the parties had a cause of action, it is clear that at the very least the jury found negligence on the part of plaintiff and defendants. On this verdict, the jury never reached the issue of damages and thus never considered the seat belt defense which was raised and submitted to it in mitigation of damages." However, the Appellate Division then proceeded to state that the charge relating to the doctrine of avoidable consequences would have been error if the issue of liability had been resolved in favor of the plaintiff. In reaching this determination, it noted that allowing the triers of fact to apportion damages for nonuse of an available seat belt "would permit the jury to engage in sheer speculation and apply an apportionment similar to computing damages under comparative negligence." Although we are in accord with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the verdicts indicate that the jury found negligence on the part of the plaintiff driver and the defendants as well and, therefore, never considered the issue of damages, we are unable to agree with its determination that the trial court's charge would have been error had the issue of liability been resolved in favor of the plaintiff.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

在一致肯定了初審法院的判決，上訴庭裁定，審判法官正確地充電的疏忽和過失相抵的規律，然後得出結論如下：“陪審團，已經確定沒有任何一方有的原因行動，很顯然，至少是陪審團發現疏忽原告和被告的一部分。在這個判決中，陪審團從未達到賠償的問題，因此沒有考慮過這是提出並提交給它的座椅安全帶防禦減輕損害“。不過，上訴庭然後繼續，有關的避免後果學說的電荷會一直錯誤，如果責任問題了有利於原告的解決狀態。在作出此確定，它指出，讓事實來分攤賠償的triers一個可用安全帶不使用的“將允許陪審團參與純粹的投機和應用類似於下比較過失損害賠償計算分攤。” 雖然我們在上訴庭的結論一致，該判決表明，陪審團發現疏忽對原告駕駛的一部分，被告以及，因此，從來沒有考慮賠償的問題上，我們不能有決心達成一致審判法院的指控將是錯誤有責任的問題，有利於原告的得到解決。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

上訴庭在一致確認審判法院的判決時認定，審判法官正確地指控了過失和過失法，然後得出結論："陪審團，裁定沒有當事人有訴訟理由，很明顯，陪審團至少認定原告和被告有過失。關於這項判決，陪審團從未就損害賠償問題達成，因此從未考慮過為減輕損害賠償而提出並提交給它的安全帶抗辯。如果責任問題得到有利於原告的解決，可避免後果的理論就是錯誤的。在作出這一裁定時，它指出，允許事實的三重奏因不使用可用安全帶而分攤損害賠償金"將允許陪審團進行純粹的投機，並適用類似于比較計算損害賠償的計算"儘管我們同意上訴庭的結論，即判決表明陪審團認定原告司機和被告的疏忽，因此，我們從未考慮過損害賠償問題，但我們是無法同意其裁定，如果責任問題得到有利於原告的解決，審判法院的指控將是錯誤的。

結果 (繁體中文) 3:

上訴庭一致確認初審法院的判决，認為初審法官正確地指控了過失法和共同過失法，然後得出如下結論：“陪審團在確定雙方均無訴因後，顯然至少陪審團認定了過失原告和被告。在這一判决中，陪審團從未涉及到損害賠償問題，囙此也從未考慮過安全帶抗辯，該抗辯是為了減輕損害而提出並提交給陪審團的，上訴庭接著指出，如果賠償責任問題得到有利於原告的解决，與可避免後果原則有關的指控將是錯誤的。在作出這一裁定時，它指出，允許事實的審判者對未使用安全帶的損害進行分攤，“將允許陪審團進行純粹的推測，並適用類似於在相對過失下計算損害賠償的分攤。”儘管我們同意上訴庭的結論，即判决表明，陪審團認為原告司機和被告也有過失，囙此，從未考慮過損害賠償問題，我們無法同意陪審團的裁定，即如果責任問題得到有利於原告的解决，審判法院的指控將是錯誤的。