No Seat Belt? The Insurer Is Overselling Its Best Argument

You were hit by a driver who ran a light, and you weren't buckled. Maybe it was a two-block trip, maybe you just forgot. A week later the adjuster calls and says, almost kindly, that since you weren't wearing your seat belt, there isn't much they can do.

That line works on a lot of people. In Nebraska, it is mostly bluff. Here's what the law actually allows an insurer to do with the seat belt, what it has to prove first, and where the argument runs out.

What Nebraska's seat belt evidence statute says

The rule is a single sentence, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,273:

"Evidence that a person was not wearing an occupant protection system or a three-point safety belt system at the time he or she was injured shall not be admissible in regard to the issue of liability or proximate cause but may be admissible as evidence concerning mitigation of damages, except that it shall not reduce recovery for damages by more than five percent."

Each part takes something away from the insurer.

Not on fault. The missing belt can't be used to argue you caused the crash or share blame for it. The Legislature's notes to the statute cite Christensen v. Broken Bow Public Schools (2022) for the point that "all evidence of nonuse of a seatbelt is inadmissible regarding liability or proximate cause." So the belt has nothing to do with Nebraska's comparative-fault rule in § 25-21,185.09, which reduces an award only for negligence that contributed to the injury and bars recovery only when the injured person's share "is equal to or greater than the total negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought." Not buckling up does not move you toward that line.

Only on damages. The belt can come in, if at all, on mitigation: the argument that some of your injuries would have been smaller had you been buckled.

Five percent, maximum. Even when the argument succeeds completely, the reduction stops at five percent.

The defense has to connect the belt to the injury

An insurer can't just announce that you were unbuckled and take five percent. The notes to § 60-6,273 cite Vredeveld v. Clark (1993), which says belt evidence comes in only "if defendant has demonstrated a causal connection between plaintiff's failure to wear an available seatbelt and the damages sustained by plaintiff."

In practice, that means the defense needs a reason to believe your particular injuries would have been different. That is usually an expert's job: a biomechanical engineer or physician looks at the crash forces, where you sat, which way you moved, and what hurt you, and offers an opinion that a belt would have prevented or reduced some of it.

That is where I push back. My questions:

• Which injury, exactly? A belt is designed to hold a body in the seat. The defense has to tie its theory to a specific diagnosis, not to "the injuries" in general.
• What kind of crash? In some collisions the intrusion of the other vehicle, not the occupant's movement, does the damage. Whether a belt would have mattered can depend on the direction and severity of the impact, and that is a genuine expert dispute.
• Would a belt have caused its own injury? Belted occupants in hard crashes can still suffer chest, abdominal and neck injuries. The comparison isn't "injured versus uninjured."
• What about the injuries that would have happened anyway? A broken leg from a crushed footwell is not a seat belt injury.

The defense targets the injuries that come from an occupant being thrown: the head striking the windshield or pillar, facial fractures, ejection injuries. Those are the injuries where its expert will spend time. For everything else, the belt is usually a talking point, not proof.

How the five percent cap works in dollars

Hypothetical: A driver rear-ends a stopped car at speed on Dodge Street. The unbelted driver of the stopped car suffers a fractured wrist, a herniated disc requiring surgery, and a facial laceration from striking the steering wheel. A jury finds total damages of $300,000.

The defense proves, through its expert, that a belt would have prevented the facial injury. Even if the jury were persuaded the belt mattered more than that, the reduction can't exceed five percent, or $15,000. The verdict can't drop below $285,000 because of the belt.

The five percent is a ceiling, not an automatic deduction; without the causal connection, the jury may hear nothing about the belt. It can also sometimes be handled without a fight. The notes to the statute cite Shipler v. General Motors Corp. (2006), where the plaintiff stipulated before trial to a five-percent reduction and the belt evidence was then kept out. Whether that trade makes sense is a strategic call, not a default.

Who Nebraska requires to wear a belt

Under § 60-6,270, the driver and "each front-seat occupant" must be belted, with exemptions for a person with a physician's written verification that they can't wear one for medical reasons, rural letter carriers between deliveries, and EMS crews during patient care.

Notice that § 60-6,273 doesn't say "in violation of" the belt law. It speaks of any person who "was not wearing" a belt. So whether you were required to wear one doesn't decide whether the defense can try the mitigation argument in Nebraska. It just doesn't change the five percent ceiling.

Passengers and children

Adult passengers. A passenger almost never caused the crash, so the belt becomes one of the few arguments an insurer has. It gets the same treatment as for a driver: not on fault, damages only, capped at five percent. I cover the rest of a passenger's claim, including which policy pays first, in my post on injured passengers in Nebraska.

Children. The rules for kids are in § 60-6,267: children up to eight years old must be in a federally compliant child restraint, and children eight to eighteen must use a belt, in any seat. But § 60-6,269 says a violation of the child-restraint rules "shall not constitute prima facie evidence of negligence," and a driver's violation "shall not constitute a defense for another person to any claim for personal injuries to a child." In plain terms: the at-fault driver who hit your family can't escape a child's injury claim by pointing out that the child wasn't in a booster seat.

Motorcyclists: no belts, a different question

Motorcycles have no seat belts, and § 60-6,267 expressly excludes them from the child-restraint rules. For riders the comparable argument is about the helmet, which is governed by a different statute with its own conditions. I explain how that issue plays out in my post on Nebraska's helmet law and injury claims. Don't assume the seat belt cap carries over to helmets.

Crashes across the river: Iowa's rule is much tougher

Plenty of Omaha drivers crash in Council Bluffs or on I-80 and I-29 in Iowa. Iowa handles belts differently under Iowa Code § 321.445.

Like Nebraska, Iowa says non-use "shall not be considered evidence of comparative fault." Also like Nebraska, the defense must do real work first: it "must first introduce substantial evidence that the failure to wear a safety belt or safety harness contributed to the injury or injuries claimed." But the ceiling is far higher: a reduction "not to exceed twenty-five percent of the damages awarded after any reductions for comparative fault."

Hypothetical: Same $300,000 in damages, but the crash is in Iowa, and the jury finds the injured driver 10 percent at fault for speeding. Comparative fault drops the award to $270,000. If the jury then finds the missing belt contributed to the injuries, it could reduce that by up to $67,500, leaving $202,500. The same facts in Nebraska could cost at most five percent.

Two other Iowa points. Iowa's belt requirement covers the driver and front-seat occupants, and the mitigation language applies to failures "in violation of this section," so I'd argue that an adult back-seat passenger's non-use shouldn't come in under that provision at all. And for children, Iowa Code § 321.446(6) says failure to use a child restraint or belt "does not constitute negligence nor is the failure admissible as evidence in a civil action." My Iowa personal injury lawyer page covers the other ways Iowa differs.

The evidence on whether you were buckled

Don't assume the insurer knows you weren't belted. Often it's guessing. The answer comes from:

• The airbag control module. Federal rules require event data recorders to capture "Safety belt status, driver," and the front passenger's status if the vehicle records it. That data is downloaded from the car, which is why preserving the vehicle matters; see my guide to dashcam, phone records and vehicle data.
• The crash report. Officers often mark a restraint code for each occupant. Those codes are sometimes based on a quick guess at a chaotic scene, and they can be wrong.
• Belt marks. A belted occupant in a hard crash may have bruising across the chest and hip. ER photos and physician notes documenting those marks, or their absence, become evidence.
• EMS and ER records. Paramedics frequently write "restrained" or "unrestrained" in their notes, sometimes based on what a bystander said.
• The belt itself. Stretched webbing or a fired pretensioner can show the belt was in use. The vehicle has to be inspected before it's salvaged.

When the records conflict, I want the vehicle data, not the adjuster's assumption.

Mistakes that make the belt a bigger issue than it is

Volunteering it in a recorded statement. "Were you wearing your seat belt?" is a standard adjuster question, and an unsure answer from someone on pain medication gets quoted back later as an admission. You are generally not required to give the at-fault driver's insurer a recorded statement; read why I tell people to slow down before giving one.

Accepting a "seat belt discount" offer. An offer that knocks off a third or half because you weren't buckled is not what Nebraska law allows. Ask how they got from five percent to their number.

Skipping treatment out of embarrassment. Gaps in care hurt a claim far more than the belt does.

Waiting. Vehicle data and video disappear, and filing deadlines are strict; check the Nebraska statute of limitations.

A third hypothetical: the back-seat adult

Four coworkers ride to lunch in Omaha. The adult in the back seat, unbelted (which Nebraska doesn't require of back-seat adults), is thrown forward when a pickup runs a stop sign and T-bones the car. She suffers a shoulder fracture. The pickup's insurer argues the belt would have prevented it. Its expert now has to explain how a lap-and-shoulder belt prevents a side-impact shoulder fracture, and even if a jury agrees, her award drops by five percent at most. The real fight in that case is over the size of the damages and the available insurance, which is where my settlement examples page and my Omaha car accident lawyer page pick up.

Why people who weren't buckled still call me

The adjuster's seat belt speech is designed to make you feel you don't deserve to be paid. Nebraska law says otherwise, and I make insurers prove every inch of the argument they want to make: which injury, what expert, what vehicle data. I'm a trial lawyer, and I fight hard for the people I represent. Over the years I've recovered more than $23 million for my clients, and my top result is $5.4 million. You can read many five-star reviews from people I've helped, and my firm was voted Best of Omaha for personal injury law in 2025 and 2026.

If you were hurt in a crash and an insurer is holding the seat belt over your head, call (402) 378-9208 or contact me here for a free consultation. You owe me no fee unless I recover money for you.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still file a claim if I wasn't wearing a seat belt in Nebraska?

Yes. Nebraska bars the seat belt from the fault question entirely. It can be used only to argue your damages should be reduced, and only by five percent at most.

Does the insurer automatically get to take five percent off?

No. The defense must show a causal connection between not wearing the belt and your actual injuries. If it can't, the reduction may be zero.

What if my crash happened in Iowa?

Iowa allows a reduction of up to twenty-five percent of damages, after any comparative-fault reduction, once the defense offers substantial evidence the missing belt contributed to the injuries. Where the case is filed can matter.

Your Attorney

Frank Younes

Every page on this site is written by Frank Younes, a Nebraska trial attorney with a published record of verdicts and settlements, selection to the National Trial Lawyers Top 100, and a practice that covers every county in Nebraska and Iowa. No case is handed to an associate — the lawyer you read here is the lawyer who works your case.

More about Frank → · Free consultation: (402) 378-9208