Arkansas Code Annotated
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (2020)
Effect of noncompliance
✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
- The failure to provide or use a child passenger safety seat shall not be considered, under any circumstances, as evidence of comparative or contributory negligence, nor shall failure be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action with regard to negligence.
- Neither shall the failure to provide or use a child passenger safety seat be considered, under any circumstances, as evidence in any prosecution for negligent homicide.
History. Acts 1983, No. 749, § 6; 1985, No. 551, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-2606.
Case Notes
Purpose.
Subsection (a) of this section embodies a policy choice by the legislature not to permit apportionment of damages for failure to use child safety seats. Potts v. Benjamin, 882 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1989).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2021 · leading case: Samantha Edwards v. Eric James Cornell Thomas & McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., 2021 Ark. 140, 625 S.W.3d 226.
Samantha Edwards v. Eric James Cornell Thomas & McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., 2021 Ark. 140, 625 S.W.3d 226. “Turning to the statute at issue, Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) is a constitutional exercise of the shared authority of the General Assembly to promulgate incidental rules of evidence within the context of a substantive policy judgment considering the statute as a whole.”
Mendoza v. WIS Int'l, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157, 490 S.W.3d 298. “In Potts, the Eighth Circuit addressed Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-34-106, the statute regarding the use of evidence of failure to place 6 Cite as 2016 Ark.”
Kroll v. Thomas, No. 4:19-cv-04018 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 7, 2020). “§ 16-111-111 , Defendants have given notice to the Arkansas Attorney General of their challenge to the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) insofar as it would bar or limit admission of evidence at trial of the failure to use a child passenger safety seat.”
Kroll v. Thomas, No. 4:19-cv-04018 (W.D. Ark. July 10, 2020). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a). This provision is the parties’ primary fighting point in the instant motion.”
Kroll v. Thomas, No. 4:19-cv-04018 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 3, 2021). “Instead, the Court certified the following question to be answered by the Arkansas Supreme Court: Under the facts of this case, whether Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) violates the separation-of-powers doctrine under article 4, section 2, and Amendment 80, section 3, of the…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106(a): 3 cases
Samantha Edwards v. Eric James Cornell Thomas & McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., 2021 Ark. 140, 625 S.W.3d 226. “Turning to the statute at issue, Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) is a constitutional exercise of the shared authority of the General Assembly to promulgate incidental rules of evidence within the context of a substantive policy judgment considering the statute as a whole.”
Kroll v. Thomas, No. 4:19-cv-04018 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 7, 2020). “§ 16-111-111 , Defendants have given notice to the Arkansas Attorney General of their challenge to the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) insofar as it would bar or limit admission of evidence at trial of the failure to use a child passenger safety seat.”
Kroll v. Thomas, No. 4:19-cv-04018 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 3, 2021). “Instead, the Court certified the following question to be answered by the Arkansas Supreme Court: Under the facts of this case, whether Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) violates the separation-of-powers doctrine under article 4, section 2, and Amendment 80, section 3, of the…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106(b): 1 case
Samantha Edwards v. Eric James Cornell Thomas & McElroy Truck Lines, Inc., 2021 Ark. 140, 625 S.W.3d 226. “Turning to the statute at issue, Ark. Code Ann. § 27-34-106 (a) is a constitutional exercise of the shared authority of the General Assembly to promulgate incidental rules of evidence within the context of a substantive policy judgment considering the statute as a whole.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.