(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Motor vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle intended primarily for use and
operation on the public highways, including passenger cars, station wagons, vans, taxicabs,
ambulances, motor homes, and pickups. The term does not include motorcycles, low-power
scooters, passenger buses, school buses, and farm tractors and implements of husbandry
designed primarily or exclusively for use in agricultural operations.
(b) "Safety belt system" means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other
belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which
system conforms to federal motor vehicle safety standards.
(2) Unless exempted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, every driver of and every
front seat passenger in a motor vehicle and every driver of and every passenger in an autocycle
equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is
being operated on a street or highway in this state.
(3) Except as provided in section 42-2-105.5, the requirement of subsection (2) of this
section shall not apply to:
(a) A child required by section 42-4-236 to be restrained by a child restraint system;
(b) A member of an ambulance team, other than the driver, while involved in patient
care;
(c) A peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., while performing official
duties so long as the performance of said duties is in accordance with rules and regulations
applicable to said officer which are at least as restrictive as subsection (2) of this section and
which only provide exceptions necessary to protect the officer;
(d) A person with a physically or psychologically disabling condition whose physical or
psychological disability prevents appropriate restraint by a safety belt system if such person
possesses a written statement by a physician certifying the condition, as well as stating the
reason why such restraint is inappropriate;
(e) A person driving or riding in a motor vehicle not equipped with a safety belt system
due to the fact that federal law does not require such vehicle to be equipped with a safety belt
system;
(f) A rural letter carrier of the United States postal service while performing duties as a
rural letter carrier; and
(g) A person operating a motor vehicle which does not meet the definition of
"commercial vehicle" as that term is defined in section 42-4-235 (1)(a) for commercial or
residential delivery or pickup service; except that such person shall be required to wear a
fastened safety belt during the time period prior to the first delivery or pickup of the day and
during the time period following the last delivery or pickup of the day.
(4) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (4), any person
who operates a motor vehicle while such person or any passenger is in violation of the
requirement of subsection (2) of this section commits a class B traffic infraction. Penalties
collected pursuant to this subsection (4) shall be transmitted to the appropriate authority pursuant
to the provisions of section 42-1-217 (1)(e) and (2).
(b) A minor driver under eighteen years of age who violates this section shall be
punished in accordance with section 42-2-105.5 (5)(b).
(5) No driver in a motor vehicle shall be cited for a violation of subsection (2) of this
section unless such driver was stopped by a law enforcement officer for an alleged violation of
articles 1 to 4 of this title other than a violation of this section.
(6) Testimony at a trial for a violation charged pursuant to subsection (4) of this section
may include:
(a) Testimony by a law enforcement officer that the officer observed the person charged
operating a motor vehicle while said operator or any passenger was in violation of the
requirement of subsection (2) of this section; or
(b) Evidence that the driver removed the safety belts or knowingly drove a vehicle from
which the safety belts had been removed.
(7) Evidence of failure to comply with the requirement of subsection (2) of this section
shall be admissible to mitigate damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor
vehicle accident and who seeks in any subsequent litigation to recover damages for injuries
resulting from the accident. Such mitigation shall be limited to awards for pain and suffering and
shall not be used for limiting recovery of economic loss and medical payments.
(8) The office of transportation safety in the department of transportation shall continue
its program for public information and education concerning the benefits of wearing safety belts
and shall include within such program the requirements and penalty of this section.
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2269, § 1, effective January 1,
1995. L. 95: (4) amended, p. 953, § 7, effective May 25. L. 99: IP(3) amended, p. 1382, § 8,
effective July 1. L. 2002: IP(3) amended, p. 1034, § 75, effective June 1. L. 2003: (3)(c)
amended, p. 1623, § 40, effective August 6. L. 2006: (4) amended, p. 439, § 3, effective July 1.
L. 2009: (1)(a) amended, (HB 09-1026), ch. 281, p. 1276, § 50, effective October 1. L. 2017:
(1)(b) and (2) amended, (HB 17-1044), ch. 72, p. 230, § 7, effective March 23. L. 2022: (1)(b)
amended, (HB 22-1043), ch. 361, p. 2586, § 19, effective January 1, 2023.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 42-4-236 as it existed prior to 1994,
and the former § 42-4-237 was relocated to § 42-4-1411.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1999 act amending the
introductory portion to subsection (3), see section 1 of chapter 334, Session Laws of Colorado
1999.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1994–2014 · leading case:
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
· cites it 67× “ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 51× “" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 35× “Analysis This case requires that we construe the phrase "pain and suffering" in Colorado's mandatory seatbelt law, section 42-4-237, which provides for mitigation of damages when a plaintiff in a automobile accident fails to use a seatbelt in violation of the statute.”
Anderson v. Watson, 953 P.2d 1284 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 17× “Pursuant to section 42-4-237, 11 C.R.S. (1997), entitled “Safety belt systems — mandatory use — exemptions—pen *1287 alty,” failure to wear a seat belt is admissible evidence if the accident victim seeks an award for pain and suffering.”
People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Wé do not find Colorado’s seatbelt statute, § 42-4-237, C.R.S.2003, a persuasive reason to follow Moore .”
People v. Sieck, 351 P.3d 502 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 7× “Section 42-4-237(2), C.R.S.2018, makes seatbelt usage mandatory for most drivers and front seat passengers in motor vehicles.”
Valdez v. Pringle, 143 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 14× “Although § 42-4-237, C.R.S. 2005, is contained in the article entitled “Regulation of Vehicles and Traffic,” the subject matter of subsection (7) is civil actions, specifically, limitations on damages claims in lawsuits arising from motor vehicle accidents.”
Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 42-4-237(7). In California, in a civil action, violation of the statute "does not establish negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact without regard to the violation.”
Wark v. McClellan, 68 P.3d 574 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “As discussed, the seat belt defense is irrelevant to the determination of negligence, and parents' failure to use seat belts on themselves or their daughters pertained only to the issue of noneconomic damages.”
Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 8-2503 ; Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 42-4-237; Okla. Stat.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004).
“, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237 (“Unless exempted pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, every driver of and every front seat passenger in a motor vehicle equipped with a safety belt system shall wear a fastened safety belt while the motor vehicle is being operated on a…”
Anderson v. Watson, 929 P.2d 6 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “This instruction was based on § 42-4-237(7), C.R.S. (1995 Cum.Supp.), which provides in pertinent part: Evidence of failure to [wear a seat belt] shall be admissible to mitigate damages with respect to any person who was involved in a motor vehicle accident and who seeks in any…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(1)(b) — 1 case
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(2) — 7 cases
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
“ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
People v. Lopez, 97 P.3d 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“Wé do not find Colorado’s seatbelt statute, § 42-4-237, C.R.S.2003, a persuasive reason to follow Moore .”
People v. Sieck, 351 P.3d 502 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
“Section 42-4-237(2), C.R.S.2018, makes seatbelt usage mandatory for most drivers and front seat passengers in motor vehicles.”
Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007).
“Analysis This case requires that we construe the phrase "pain and suffering" in Colorado's mandatory seatbelt law, section 42-4-237, which provides for mitigation of damages when a plaintiff in a automobile accident fails to use a seatbelt in violation of the statute.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(4) — 3 cases
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
“ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
Anderson v. Watson, 953 P.2d 1284 (Colo. 1998).
“Pursuant to section 42-4-237, 11 C.R.S. (1997), entitled “Safety belt systems — mandatory use — exemptions—pen *1287 alty,” failure to wear a seat belt is admissible evidence if the accident victim seeks an award for pain and suffering.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(7) — 12 cases
Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007).
“Analysis This case requires that we construe the phrase "pain and suffering" in Colorado's mandatory seatbelt law, section 42-4-237, which provides for mitigation of damages when a plaintiff in a automobile accident fails to use a seatbelt in violation of the statute.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
Anderson v. Watson, 953 P.2d 1284 (Colo. 1998).
“Pursuant to section 42-4-237, 11 C.R.S. (1997), entitled “Safety belt systems — mandatory use — exemptions—pen *1287 alty,” failure to wear a seat belt is admissible evidence if the accident victim seeks an award for pain and suffering.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
“ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
Valdez v. Pringle, 143 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
“Although § 42-4-237, C.R.S. 2005, is contained in the article entitled “Regulation of Vehicles and Traffic,” the subject matter of subsection (7) is civil actions, specifically, limitations on damages claims in lawsuits arising from motor vehicle accidents.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(8) — 1 case
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
“ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(l)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-4-237(l)(b) — 2 cases
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003).
“ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES Carlson’s plain meaning interpretation of section 42-4-237 hinges on the distinction she draws between the statutory definition of the term “safety belt system” and the words “fastened safety belt.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 58 P.3d 1055 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“" Section 42-4-237(1)(b), C.R.S.2001, provides that "`Safety belt system' means a system utilizing a lap belt, a shoulder belt, or any other belt or combination of belts installed in a motor vehicle to restrain drivers and passengers, which system conforms to federal motor…”
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.