Could a Texas physician be liable for giving a patient a medical exemption from the seat-belt requirement, and would a release prevent liability?

Texas AG Opinion JM-419: Seat-Belt Medical Exemptions

Plain-English summary

The 1985 seat-belt law excused a person who possessed “a written statement from a licensed physician stating that for medical reasons the person is unable to wear a safety belt.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

JM-419 found that section 107C “does not contain any provision providing for immunity from civil liability for a physician who provides a written statement that a person cannot wear a seat belt for medical reasons.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

The opinion did not say that issuing a letter automatically created liability. It said liability “would depend on the plaintiff's ability to prove the elements of negligence,” including breach of a duty of ordinary care and proximate cause. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

JM-419 also declined to give a categorical answer about a signed release because “the validity of a release depends on the circumstances surrounding the particular release.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the 1985 statute give physicians immunity for seat-belt exemption letters?

No. JM-419 said the statute “does not contain any provision providing for immunity from civil liability” for a physician who issued the medical statement. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Did the opinion conclude that every exemption letter was negligent?

No. It said liability depended on proof that the physician “breached a duty of acting with ordinary care” and that the breach “was the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Could seat-belt use or nonuse be introduced in a civil trial under that statute?

Section 107C(j), as quoted by the opinion, provided: “Use or nonuse of a safety belt is not admissible evidence in a civil trial.” JM-419 said this rule would make a negligence claim against the physician “extremely difficult” to prove as a practical matter. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Would a liability release always protect the physician?

JM-419 would not give a definitive answer. It stated that “the validity of a release depends on the circumstances surrounding the particular release.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 6701d, section 107C generally required people riding in a passenger car's front seat to wear a seat belt. Subsections (f) and (g) created routes for a physician's written statement that a person could not wear one for medical reasons. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

The opinion separated statutory immunity from ordinary negligence rules. Although the statute supplied no express immunity, JM-419 said a plaintiff still had to prove duty, breach, and proximate cause, while questions of ordinary care and proximate cause were “generally questions of fact to be answered by a jury.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

For the release question, the opinion relied on Atkins v. Womble and stopped at the fact-dependent rule. Its summary said: “The validity of a release depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Citations and references

• article 6701d, section 107C, V.T.C.S.
• article 6701d, section 107C(f), V.T.C.S.
• article 6701d, section 107C(g), V.T.C.S.
• article 6701d, section 107C(j), V.T.C.S.
• Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 804, at 6062
• Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. 1975)
• Lumpkins v. Thompson, 553 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
• Blanks v. Southland Hotel, Inc., 229 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. 1950)
• Clark v. Waggoner, 452 S.W.2d 437 (Tex. 1970)
• Atkins v. Womble, 300 S.W.2d 688 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0419
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1985/jm0419.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

December 31, 1985

Honorable Gibson D. (Gib) Lewis
Speaker
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769

Opinion No. JM-419

Re: Whether a physician who grants to an individual a medical exemption from wearing a seat belt under article 6701d, section 107C, V.T.C.S., may be liable in the event of injury

Dear Speaker Lewis:

You ask several questions about the new seat belt law. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 804, at 6062 (to be codified at art. 6701d, §107C, V.T.C.S.). The law provides that, as a general rule, persons riding in the front seat of a passenger car must wear a seat belt. The law takes into account, however, the possibility that a person may not be able to wear a seat belt for medical reasons by providing as follows:

(f) . . . [The seat belt requirement] does not apply to a person who possesses a written statement from a licensed physician stating that for medical reasons the person is unable to wear a safety belt.

(g) It is a defense to prosecution . . . that the person presents to the court, not later than the 10th day after the date of the offense, a statement from a licensed physician stating that for medical reasons the person is unable to wear a safety belt.

V.T.C.S. art. 6701d, §107C(f) and (g). You ask the following questions in regard to those provisions:

1. If a person who wears no seat belt is injured in an auto accident, does the physician who issued the person a medical exemption letter face any civil liability?

2. If so, will a release from liability, signed by the person seeking the exemption, be sufficient to protect the physician from liability connected with an auto injury where the failure of the person to wear a seat belt becomes an issue?

Article 6701d, section 107C, does not contain any provision providing for immunity from civil liability for a physician who provides a written statement that a person cannot wear a seat belt for medical reasons. The statute does, however, contain the following provision:

Use or nonuse of a safety belt is not admissible evidence in a civil trial.

V.T.C.S. art. 6701d, §107C(j). As a practical matter, this rule would make it extremely difficult for a person to prove a claim of negligence against a physician who had provided a statement of medical exemption.

If a person claimed that a physician who has provided a statement of medical exemption was liable for injuries that person suffered in an automobile accident, the physician's liability would depend on the plaintiff's ability to prove the elements of negligence. Generally, a finding of liability based on negligence requires proof that the defendant breached a duty of acting with ordinary care and that such breach was the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff. See Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex. 1975); Lumpkins v. Thompson, 553 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Questions of failure to exercise ordinary care and questions of proximate cause are generally questions of fact to be answered by a jury. Blanks v. Southland Hotel, Inc., 229 S.W.2d 357, 361 (Tex. 1950); Clark v. Waggoner, 452 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex. 1970).

Your second question is whether a release from the person seeking the exemption would protect a physician from liability. The validity of a release depends on the circumstances surrounding the particular release. See Atkins v. Womble, 300 S.W.2d 688, 703 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Therefore, we cannot give a definitive response to your question.

SUMMARY

The law does not explicitly make physicians immune from liability for negligence in providing a person a statement of exemption from the mandatory seat belt law. The validity of a release depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

Very truly yours,

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General