In a ruling that reaffirms the importance of compliance with road safety regulations, The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the claim of a citizen who was fined ten years ago for not wearing a seat belt while driving alone in the department of Las Heras, Mendoza (Argentina).
According to the criteria of
The incident that sparked the long legal battle occurred during a routine traffic stop at the intersection of Acceso Norte and Reconquista. There, officers noticed that the driver was not wearing a seat belt, for which he was fined and his driver’s license was confiscated.
Dissatisfied, The citizen initially filed an appeal in the civil court of Mendoza, questioning the constitutionality of Law No. 6082, which regulates traffic and considers failure to wear a seat belt as a serious infraction.
Failure
The traffic law, in force in Argentina since 1995, was defended by the Mendoza courts and, eventually, by the Supreme Court of the Nation. Local and national judges have agreed that the obligation to wear seatbelts on public roads does not constitute a violation of personal autonomy, but rather a “small personal sacrifice” for the sake of a greater good: collective security and the protection of lives.
In his argument, Judge Carlos Rosenkrantz, one of the voters in the Court, stressed that vehicular traffic is an activity that requires coordination of all participants to ensure fluid and safe traffic.
Rosenkrantz cited World Health Organization statistics showing how seat belt use significantly reduces the chances of death and serious injury in traffic accidents.
“These consequences are even more serious if we consider the greater risk that a collision could cause the driver to lose consciousness, increasing the probability of losing control of the vehicle and directly affecting third parties. It is clear, then, that a car collision on a public road involving a driver who is not wearing a seat belt not only hinders the achievement of the objectives that collective activity legitimately pursues, but also represents an economic and opportunity cost for the entire community,” concluded Rosenkrantz.
Ten years ago, a man was traveling unaccompanied by car on public roads and was arrested at a traffic checkpoint in the department of Las Heras.
Photo:
For its part, Judge Ricardo Lorenzetti stated that there is no conflict between Mendoza law and the right to personal autonomy. The magistrate explained that state regulations seeking to prevent risks to third parties are justified under Article 19 of the National Constitution, which allows certain state interventions when they seek to prevent harm to the community.
“It is not a matter of an antinomy of rules, but of a collision of principles. The claim that his omission is protected by Article 19 of the National Constitution must be rejected. The obligation to wear a seat belt in public, the non-compliance of which is sanctioned as an offence, does not constitute an undue interference in individual autonomy, since what it seeks is the prevention of a certain risk of harm to third parties, which is one of the hypotheses provided for by Article 19 to enable state intervention and the jurisdiction of the magistrates,” he said.
The Court’s ruling definitively closes the case at the national level, and the plaintiff would now only be able to seek recourse in international instances if he decides to proceed with his claim.
More news in EL TIEMPO
*This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence, based on information from La Nación (GDA), and was reviewed by a journalist and an editor.
#fined #wearing #seat #belt #claim #Supreme #Court #Justice
