Ark. Code Ann. § 27-37-703 (2026)
Effect of noncompliance
-
- The failure of an occupant to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt shall not be admissible into evidence in a civil action.
-
Provided, that evidence of the failure may be admitted in a civil action as to the causal relationship between noncompliance and the injuries alleged, if the following conditions have been satisfied:
- The plaintiff has filed a products liability claim other than a claim related to an alleged failure of a seat belt;
- The defendant alleging noncompliance with this subchapter shall raise this defense in its answer or timely amendment thereto in accordance with the rules of civil procedure; and
-
Each defendant seeking to offer evidence alleging noncompliance has the burden of proving:
- Noncompliance;
- That compliance would have reduced injuries; and
- The extent of the reduction of the injuries.
-
- Upon request of any party, the trial judge shall hold a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the admissibility of such evidence in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules of evidence.
- The finding of the trial judge shall not constitute a finding of fact, and the finding shall be limited to the issue of admissibility of such evidence.
History. Acts 1991, No. 562, § 5; 1993, No. 1086, § 1; 1995, No. 1118, § 1.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Dorothy Vaughan Goodwin, Recent Developments: Section 27-37-703 of the Arkansas Code Violates Separation of Powers Under the Arkansas Constitution, Mendoza v. WIS Int’l, Inc., 69 Ark. L. Rev. 639 (2016).
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Legislative Survey, Evidence, 16 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 127.
Case Notes
Constitutionality.
This section is procedural and therefore offends the principle of separation of powers and the powers specifically prescribed to the Supreme Court of Arkansas by Ark. Const. Amend. 80. Accordingly, in response to a certified question from the federal district court, the Supreme Court holds that this section violates separation of powers under Ark. Const., Art. 4, § 2, and Ark. Const. Amend. 80, § 3, and is therefore unconstitutional. Mendoza v. WIS Int'l, Inc., 2016 Ark. 157, 490 S.W.3d 298 (2016).
Admissibility.
—Improper.
Amendment to an answer was properly stricken where it alleged the failure of an injured party to wear a seat belt since any evidence of such failure was inadmissible in a civil proceeding under subdivision (a)(1) of this section. Allen v. Greenland, 347 Ark. 465, 65 S.W.3d 424 (2002).
Comparative Negligence.
Because § 16-64-122 defines comparative fault in terms of that which proximately causes damages, plaintiffs' failure to wear their seat belts was a failure to exercise ordinary care, and such failure is not considered “fault” for purposes of comparative fault, unless it was a proximate cause of plaintiffs' damages, in accidents occurring prior to the passage of this section. Plaintiffs' nonuse of their seat belts may be admissible as evidence of their comparative fault if such nonuse is a proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries, which the defendant has the burden of proving. Baker v. Morrison, 309 Ark. 457, 829 S.W.2d 421 (1992).
Evidence.
In a rollover vehicle case in which the decedent allegedly did not wear a seat belt, the manufacturer did not adequately prove the elements relating to noncompliance and reduction in injury under this section, and therefore evidence that the decedent was not wearing his seat belt was properly excluded. The evidence was not rendered admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404 merely because the survivor opened the door by introducing evidence that he was wearing his seat belt. Ford Motor Co. v. Washington, 2013 Ark. 510, 431 S.W.3d 210 (2013).
—Admissibility.
The issue regarding the admissibility of seat-belt evidence in relation to plaintiff's strict-liability crashworthiness claim was not decided because plaintiff failed to prove that she was prejudiced by the admission of the seat-belt evidence. Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R., 201 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2000).
—Improper.
In an action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the trial court erred when it permitted the introduction of evidence of inconsistent statements by the plaintiff regarding his use of a seatbelt, notwithstanding the court's instruction to the jury that such evidence was to be considered only in regard to the credibility of the plaintiff, since such an instruction could not cure the highly prejudicial effect of the introduction of seatbelt-nonuse evidence. Grummer v. Cummings, 336 Ark. 447, 986 S.W.2d 91 (1999).
Although this section as it existed at the time of the accident clearly prohibited evidence of seat belt non-use for plaintiff's negligence claim, both the statute and Arkansas case law at the time were silent on whether such evidence also was barred in strict-liability cases. Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R., 201 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2000).
—Sufficient.
Reports of the doctor that stated that plaintiff suffered from a 20 percent impairment and that the impairment was caused when the seat belt failed and he jammed his thighs up under the steering wheel, as well as other trial evidence, including the pictures of the wrecked truck and plaintiff's testimony concerning what happened during the accident, were sufficient for the jury to determine the extent to which the alleged absence of a functioning seat belt enhanced plaintiff's injuries. Newton v. Ryder Transp. Servs., 206 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2000).
Cited: State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161, 987 S.W.2d 686 (1999).