C.F.R. » Title 49 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS › PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES › Subpart B—Driving of Commercial Motor Vehicles

49 C.F.R. § 392.16

Use of seat belts

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Drivers. No driver shall operate a commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle, that has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat unless the driver is properly restrained by the seat belt assembly.

(b) Passengers. No driver shall operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, and a motor carrier shall not require or permit a driver to operate a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle, that has seat belt assemblies installed at the seats for other occupants of the vehicle unless all other occupants are properly restrained by such seat belt assemblies.

[81 FR 36479, June 7, 2016; 81 FR 43957, July 6, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2021 · leading case: Frederick H. Garrett v. State, 424 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frederick H. Garrett v. State, 424 S.W.3d 624 (Tex. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “; see also 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 . Regulation 392.16 provides, “A commercial motor vehicle which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver’s seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself/herself with the seat belt assembly.”
Martinez v. CO2 Servs., Inc., 12 F. App'x 689 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “4 As an alternative theory of both causation and liability, plaintiff alleges that Mullins was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident as required by 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 and that his negligent failure to *693 wear a seat belt was a proximate cause of the accident.”
Carol Lynn Brandes v. Donald Burbank & Finer Iron & Metal Co., Inc., 613 F.2d 658 (7th Cir. 1980). “” 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 . A driver who violated this section would be presumed to be contributorily negligent if he were the claimant' against the driver of another vehicle.”
Lloyd Andrew Chambers v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2021). “11 (2013); see also 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 . 2 See City of Houston, Tex.”
Lloyd Andrew Chambers v. the State of Texas (Tex. App. 2021). “11 (2013); see also 49 C.F.R. § 392.16 . 3 See City of Houston, Tex.”
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.