
    PEOPLE v BURT
    Docket No. 106414.
    Submitted August 3, 1988, at Lansing.
    Decided September 13, 1988.
    Leave to appeal applied for.
    Wayne G. Burt was charged in Gratiot Circuit Court with negligent homicide. The circuit court, Randy L. Tahvonen, J., granted defendant’s motion in limine to permit the admission of evidence that the decedent was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the automobile accident that resulted in the negligent homicide charge. The people appealed on leave granted.
    The Court of Appeals held:
    
    While evidence of the decedent’s negligence is admissible for the purpose of the jury’s consideration of the question of whether the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death, evidence that the decedent was not using a seat belt is irrelevant to the determination of whether the defendant is guilty of criminal conduct. It, therefore, was error to grant defendant’s motion in limine.
    Reversed.
    Homicide — Negligent Homicide — Contributory Negligence — Evidence — Seat Belt Use.
    A decedent’s contributory negligence is not a defense to a negligent homicide charge, but the jury may consider the conduct of the deceased to determine whether the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death; however, the failure of the decedent to wear a seat belt is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant is guilty of criminal conduct and evidence of such failure of the decedent to wear a seat belt should be excluded at trial (MCL 750.324; MSA 28.556).
    References
    Am Jur 2d, Homicide §§ 91 et seq., 113, 245 et seq.
    
    Validity and construction of statute defining homicide by conduct manifesting "depraved indifference”. 25 ALR4th 311.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, and Mark A. Gates, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      
      Bruce K. Havens, for defendant.
    Before: Danhof, C.J., and Cynar and G. R. DeNEWETH, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant is charged with negligent homicide. MCL 750.324; MSA 28.556. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from Gratiot Circuit Court orders which granted defendant’s motion in limine to permit the admission of evidence that the decedent failed to wear a safety belt. We reverse.

The decedent, Matthew Everdeen, died after a vehicle which he drove collided with a vehicle driven by defendant. Defendant allegedly failed to yield the right of way at a stop sign. Everdeen was not wearing a safety belt at the time of the accident.

A decedent’s contributory negligence is not a defense to a negligent homicide charge. However, the jury may consider the conduct of the decedent or a third party in determining whether the defendant was negligent and whether the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the decedent’s death. People v Clark, 295 Mich 704, 708-709; 295 NW 370 (1940); People v Campbell, 237 Mich 424, 430-432; 212 NW 97 (1927); People v Barnes, 182 Mich 179; 148 NW 400 (1914); People v Phillips, 131 Mich App 486, 492; 346 NW2d 344 (1984); People v Ebejer, 66 Mich App 333, 339; 239 NW2d 604 (1976); People v Jeglum, 41 Mich App 247; 199 NW2d 854 (1972).

The above-cited cases concern whether the conduct of the victim or a third party caused an accident. Here, Everdeen’s failure to wear a safety belt did not cause the accident. Defendant claims that evidence of Everdeen’s failure to wear a safety belt is admissible for the purpose of determining whether defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of Everdeen’s death. We reject defendant’s claim because the negligent homicide statute is designed to punish criminal conduct. Everdeen’s failure to wear a safety belt is irrelevant to the determination of whether defendant is guilty of criminal conduct, People v Richardson, 170 Mich App 470; 428 NW2d 698 (1988). The evidence must be excluded.

Reversed.  