Taffic law question - LA RS 32:295.1

A person pulled out in front of me, admitted he was at fault, but is claiming injuries sustained in the accident that were indeed sustained as a result of the impact.  He has filed the complaint while citing LA RS32:295.1 (E).
I read and understand the language but how the heck could this paragraph exist?
The first part of the law states that you MUST wear a seatbelt unless; with a list of reasonable exceptions, ie postal delivery person, milkman, larger vehicle, etc.
If you must wear a seat belt per the rule, then how can the rule allow you to receive damages as a result of injury while breaking the rule?
My Question:  Other than the law changing overnight is there a way to work around this since in the court room if it goes that far.  We can not submit evidence that his injuries were a result of his own negligence.  I am not a law professional but am constantly improving my education in law and am personally going to suffer a financial loss here it goes through.
I can not figure a way to introduce the idea that he would not have suffered any injuries if he had been restrained.
I did have his vehicle inspected by a crash expert educated in this field and he has stated the same but if (E) protects the individual from his own evil doing then there is a problem with that.

jeeperjim

[My life has been crazier than a work of fiction.....who'da believed?]

I once did all the legwork for an attorney who got around this concept by proving that the individual was overweight and had most likely been affected by being overweight, while a less overweight person would not have suffered injuries as great in the accident.

If the person isn't overweight, you can apply the same logic to them being a drinker, partier, womanizer.....workaholic, or whatever. The idea is to show that they LIKELY had undetected pre-existing [preventable] physical conditions (due to their habits) that contributed to the severity of the injury.


Is this underhanded, and potentially a heated topic in the courtroom? Maybe. But if it is before a jury, believe me it makes them think. Just be careful if the person is terribly sympathetic, it could backfire.

3kidsmom

"A person pulled out in front of me, admitted he was at fault, "

If he was at fault, why would there be any argument involving you that has to do with whether or not he was wearing a seat belt?

The only reason I can see seat belts being an issue is on his own medical coverage under his auto insurance -which would be between him and his carrier.

lex