WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 2906

Preservation of hair during chemotherapy

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Walter Hall and 1 co-sponsor

HB 2906 would make seat-belt nonuse admissible as negligence evidence in civil cases, potentially reducing damages; insurer liability remains intact (governor vetoed).

To House Banking and Insurance
#health
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 2906

Summary — HB 2906 (Vehicle Code — Seat Safety Belts) — Illinois

  • Statute amended: 625 ILCS 5/12-603.1 (Illinois Vehicle Code)
  • Primary sponsor: Rep. Michelle Mussman
  • Subject: Seat belt use; evidentiary effect of seat-belt nonuse/misuse on civil liability
  • Jurisdiction: State of Illinois
  • Key status (from provided actions): Passed both chambers and transmitted to the Governor; vetoed by the Governor on 2025-04-18.

Main purpose / intent

HB 2906 alters the legal effect of a driver’s or passenger’s failure to wear a seat belt (or misuse of a seat belt) in civil actions arising from motor vehicle incidents. The bill makes seat-belt nonuse potentially admissible as evidence of negligence and allows such nonuse to potentially diminish a plaintiff’s recovery, while expressly preserving insurer liability.

Key provisions / changes

  • Changes the evidentiary rule in Section 12‑603.1(c):
    • Current law (pre-amendment): Failure to wear or misuse of a seat belt "shall not be considered evidence of negligence," "shall not limit the liability of an insurer," and "shall not diminish any recovery" for damages.
    • Under HB 2906 (as introduced): Failure to wear or misuse a seat belt "may be considered evidence of negligence" and "may diminish any recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle," but "shall not limit the liability of an insurer."
  • Retains existing substantive requirements and exceptions:
    • Requirement that drivers and passengers wear properly adjusted and fastened seat safety belts; children under 8 treated under Child Passenger Protection Act; drivers responsible for securing certain children.
    • Listed exceptions remain (examples): vehicle operated at low speeds between stops (≤ 15 mph), medical exemptions with written statement or certificate, vehicles model year pre‑1965, motorcycles, mopeds, certain postal/rural carrier duties, certain emergency vehicle situations, back‑seat taxicab passengers, etc.
  • Penalty and enforcement:
    • Violation remains a petty offense with fine up to $25.
    • Law enforcement may not search or inspect a vehicle, its contents, driver, or passenger solely because of a seat-belt violation.

Who would be affected

  • Motor vehicle occupants (drivers and passengers) — nonuse or misuse of seat belts could be used against them in civil litigation and could reduce the damages they recover.
  • Plaintiffs in automobile‑related injury suits — potential reduction in recoverable damages where seat‑belt nonuse is relevant.
  • Defendants/insurers — insurers’ liability is explicitly preserved (the bill states that insurer liability is not limited by seat‑belt nonuse).
  • Courts and lawyers — will see increased use of seat‑belt evidence and related arguments about comparative or contributory negligence in motor‑vehicle cases.

Potential impact / implications

  • Legal: Converts seat‑belt nonuse from legally irrelevant (for negligence/damages) into admissible evidence that can reduce plaintiff recoveries in personal‑injury actions. This effectively introduces a form of comparative fault for seat-belt nonuse while keeping insurer obligations intact.
  • Behavioral: Could create stronger incentives for occupants to use seat belts (because nonuse may reduce civil recoveries).
  • Insurance: The bill explicitly preserves insurer liability; insurers cannot rely on this statute to avoid coverage—although insureds’ recoveries in lawsuits could be smaller, affecting subrogation and settlement dynamics.
  • Enforcement: No change to criminal/penalty structure beyond the evidentiary rule; search protections remain.

Legislative timeline / current status

  • Introduced and passed both chambers (dates listed). Transmitted to the Governor 2025-04-16. Vetoed by the Governor on 2025-04-18.
  • Next steps (general): The General Assembly may consider overriding the veto (requires the constitutionally prescribed supermajority—Illinois requires three‑fifths of those present and voting in each chamber).

If you want, I can draft a one‑page explainer on how this evidentiary change would interact with Illinois’s negligence and comparative‑fault doctrines (including example jury instruction language and likely litigation effects).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.