Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 8-1345 (2026)

Same; unlawful acts; penalties; fine waived, when; notification of waiver; defense to action

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-1345. Same; unlawful acts; penalties; fine waived, when; notification of waiver; defense to action. (a) It shall be unlawful for any driver to violate the provisions of K.S.A. 8-1344, and amendments thereto, and upon conviction such driver shall be punished by a fine of $60. The failure to provide a child safety restraining system or safety belt for more than one child in the same passenger car, or autocycle as defined in K.S.A. 8-1497, and amendments thereto, at the same time shall be treated as a single violation. Any conviction under the provisions of this subsection shall not be construed as a moving traffic violation for the purpose of K.S.A. 8-255, and amendments thereto.

(b) The $60 fine provided for in subsection (a) shall be waived if the driver convicted of violating K.S.A. 8-1344(a)(1) or (2), and amendments thereto, provides proof to the court that such driver has purchased or acquired the appropriate and approved child passenger safety restraining system. At the time of issuing the citation for a violation of K.S.A. 8-1344(a)(1) or (2), and amendments thereto, the law enforcement officer shall notify the driver of the waiver provisions of this subsection.

(c) No driver charged with violating the provisions of this act shall be convicted if such driver produces in the office of the arresting officer or in court proof that the child was 14 years of age or older at the time the violation was alleged to have occurred.

(d) Evidence of failure to secure a child in a child passenger safety restraining system or a safety belt under the provisions of K.S.A. 8-1344, and amendments thereto, shall not be admissible in any action for the purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.

(e) From and after the effective date of this act, and prior to July 1, 2007, a law enforcement officer shall issue a warning citation to anyone violating K.S.A. 8-1344(a)(2), and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1981, ch. 33, § 3; L. 1984, ch. 38, § 2; L. 1989, ch. 40, § 2; L. 1992, ch. 317, § 3; L. 2006, ch. 44, § 2; L. 2007, ch. 140, § 15; L. 2015, ch. 48, § 10; May 14.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 10× “Here, Missy has offered no real argument as to why, given our opinion in Watkins that K.S.A. 8-1345 applies the common-law rule for determining negligence, the legislature has abrogated her *787 right to a fair trial by enacting K.”

Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transp. Servs., Inc., 819 P.2d 587 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 2× “, in 1981 it required children of certain ages to be placed in safety restraining systems. K.S.A. 8-1344. In 1984, the legislature made it unlawful for any driver to violate K.”

– State v. Jenkins –, 455 P.3d 779 (Kan. 2020). “K.S.A. 8-1345(a) specifically excludes certain violations relating to child-passenger safety from being considered moving traffic violations as they relate to K.”

Watkins v. Hartsock, 783 P.2d 1293 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 8-1345. Prior to passage of the act, the legislature made two significant changes in the original bill.”

State v. Richardson, 224 P.3d 553 (Kan. 2010). “K.S.A. 8-1345(a) specifically excludes certain violations relating to child-passenger safety from being considered moving traffic violations as they relate to K.”

Gardner Ex Rel. Gardner v. Chrysler Corp., 89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 1996). “” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1345 (a). The Watkins court concluded the legislature thus evidenced an intent to modify the common law in this amendment rejecting defendant’s effort to introduce “general principles of tort law” into the analysis.”

Pleas v. First Student, Inc., 837 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “Prohibiting evidence of nonuse of a seat belt or safety restraint system in this case would not further this goal because the defendant is not seeking to lessen plaintiffs recovery by using the evidence.”

— K.S.A. § 8-1345(a) — 2 cases

— K.S.A. § 8-1345(d) — 1 case

Siruta Ex Rel. Heirs at Law of Siruta v. Siruta, 348 P.3d 549 (Kan. 2015). “Here, Missy has offered no real argument as to why, given our opinion in Watkins that K.S.A. 8-1345 applies the common-law rule for determining negligence, the legislature has abrogated her *787 right to a fair trial by enacting K.”

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.