If am I wrong, how do you reconcile that with your Kevlar helmets example? As there is no requirement to wear Kevlar helmets, there should be no requirement for seatbelts.

Am incorrect that you think cars should not be required to have seat belts or not?

So it looks like you're of the opinion that there should be no seat belt laws and that automobile manufacturers should not be required to put safety devices in cars. Let the public decide if they want to purchase a car with a seatbelt or not.

If Wal-Mart should not have the advantages of a person when mounting a defense, then perhaps you think they should not be sued?

I'll give you a tip. If you want to be involved in discussions, don't go to insanely extreme examples to prove a point. A nuclear bomb has never been dropped in this country on civilians. Car accidents happen every day. Many times a day, in fact.

Holy crap, you are completely insane. What is with the nutty slippery slope stuff? How do you make it through life?

Basic Physics tells me to always wear a seatbelt when one is provided to me so the gigantic hunks of metal on the road don't injure me severely should there be an accident.

"If you cause the action, then you are the cause."

Another sucker. If you think I'm sympathetic to Wal-Mart, you're severely mistaken. If El Marinero was asleep at the wheel and causes the same injuries, he's no different from Wal-Mart. The only difference is in the pockets. From his attitude, I'm sure he'd empty them completely since the accident is his fault.

I hope you never do anything that could get you sued. I'm sure you'd roll over and not use all the tools available to your defense.

So only certain people should be allowed to use that legal defense. No offense, but you sound like a sucker. It won't absolve Wal Mart of all the blame, so you should calm down a bit.

They aren't saying it's Morgan's fault the truck drove into their vehicle. Where are you getting that idea from?

They aren't saying it's Morgan's fault the truck drove into their vehicle. Where are you getting that idea from?

So if we play it the way you'd like and do away with contributory negligence, you wouldn't complain when your insurance rates go higher, ha?

I don't deny that, and don't think Wal mart should be totally off the hook at all. They aren't evil for putting on the best defense possible, though. Any one of the commenters would do the same.

Sorry, but if two parties are negligent, it's not soulless to bring that up, even of one party is more negligent than the other.

Sorry, but if two parties are negligent, it's not soulless to bring that up, even of one party is more negligent than the other.

Wow so many commenters not understanding how lawsuits like this work and how their own attorneys would do the same thing as Wal mart given a similar set of facts.

It's a valid defense in cases such as this. There is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing it up. If he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, his injuries were almost certainly worsened by that fact. If you got in an accident and the other party isn't wearing a seatbelt, you better believe your insurance company would be…

Everything you've ever loved will be strip mined for content and parts.