K.S.A. » Chapter 08
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 8-2504 (2026)

Same; fines; violation not reported to department of revenue; failure to use seat belt not admissible to determine negligence or damages

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

8-2504. Same; fines; violation not reported to department of revenue; failure to use seat belt not admissible to determine negligence or damages. (a) (1) Persons violating K.S.A. 8-2503(a)(1), and amendments thereto, shall be fined $30 and no court costs; and

(2) persons violating K.S.A. 8-2503(a)(2), and amendments thereto, shall be fined $60 and no court costs.

(b) No court shall report violation of this act to the department of revenue.

(c) Evidence of failure of any person to use a safety belt shall not be admissible in any action for the purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.

(d) The provisions of this section shall be applicable and uniform throughout the state and no city, county, subdivision or local authority shall enact or enforce any law, ordinance, rule, regulation or resolution in conflict with, in addition to, or supplemental to, the provisions of this section.

History: L. 1986, ch. 35, § 4; L. 2007, ch. 140, § 12; L. 2010, ch. 157, § 2; L. 2011, ch. 45, § 10; L. 2017, ch. 74, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1989–2015 · leading case: Gardner Ex Rel. Gardner v. Chrysler Corp., 89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gardner Ex Rel. Gardner v. Chrysler Corp., 89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 10× “Gardner now complains when Chrysler injected the seat belt issue into evidence, it tainted her trial, permitting the jury to equate her nonuse with fault and to divest Chrysler of responsibility for the defective seat back. She alleges her effort to immunize the trial from this…”
Gaudio v. Ford Motor Co., 976 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “" See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-2504 (c); see also Del.”
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones, 878 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994). “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 8-2504(c). See also Me. RevStatAnN.”
Watkins v. Hartsock, 783 P.2d 1293 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 8-2504(c) and L. 1989, ch.”
Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2004). “See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-2504 (c) (inadmissible for purposes of determining comparative negligence or mitigation of damages); Colo.”
Barnes v. Robison, 712 F. Supp. 873 (D. Kan. 1989). · cites it 4× “In support of their motion, plaintiffs contend that the same rule of admissibility should apply to the nonuse of a child safety restraint as applies to the nonuse of a seat belt, see K.S.A. 8-2504(c); i.e., the failure of a person to secure his child in a safety restraint as…”
State v. Brammer, 343 P.3d 75 (Kan. 2015). “See K.S.A. 8-2504(c) (“Evidence of failure of any person to use a safety belt shall not be admissible in any action for tire purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.”
State v. Schmitter, 933 P.2d 762 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “” *554 K.S.A. 8-2504(2) states that “from and after July 1,1987, persons violating subsection (a) of K.”
Simpson v. State of Kansas, 593 F. App'x 790 (10th Cir. 2014). “See Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 8-2504 (a), 8-1345(a).”
Huff v. Shumate, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Wyo. 2004). “In so finding, the court merely stated: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-2504 (c) is not simply a rule of evidence, which we could then ignore under our diversity jurisdiction, but represents the substantive law of Kansas, one concerned with the chan *1208 neling of behavior outside the…”
Floyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 960 P.2d 763 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “The Floyds point to K.S.A. 8-2504(c), which provides that evidence of nonuse of a safety belt is inadmissible “in any action for the purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.”
Jimenez Ex Rel. Est. of Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439 (4th Cir. 2001). “§ 27-37-703 ; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-2504 (c); Mo. Rev. Stat.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 8-2504(2) — 1 case
State v. Schmitter, 933 P.2d 762 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “” *554 K.S.A. 8-2504(2) states that “from and after July 1,1987, persons violating subsection (a) of K.”
— K.S.A. § 8-2504(a)(2) — 1 case
Gardner Ex Rel. Gardner v. Chrysler Corp., 89 F.3d 729 (10th Cir. 1996). “Gardner now complains when Chrysler injected the seat belt issue into evidence, it tainted her trial, permitting the jury to equate her nonuse with fault and to divest Chrysler of responsibility for the defective seat back. She alleges her effort to immunize the trial from this…”
— K.S.A. § 8-2504(c) — 6 cases
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Glyn-Jones, 878 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994). “Kan.Stat.Ann. § 8-2504(c). See also Me. RevStatAnN.”
Watkins v. Hartsock, 783 P.2d 1293 (Kan. 1989). “K.S.A. 1988 Supp. 8-2504(c) and L. 1989, ch.”
Barnes v. Robison, 712 F. Supp. 873 (D. Kan. 1989). “In support of their motion, plaintiffs contend that the same rule of admissibility should apply to the nonuse of a child safety restraint as applies to the nonuse of a seat belt, see K.S.A. 8-2504(c); i.e., the failure of a person to secure his child in a safety restraint as…”
State v. Brammer, 343 P.3d 75 (Kan. 2015). “See K.S.A. 8-2504(c) (“Evidence of failure of any person to use a safety belt shall not be admissible in any action for tire purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.”
Floyd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 960 P.2d 763 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “The Floyds point to K.S.A. 8-2504(c), which provides that evidence of nonuse of a safety belt is inadmissible “in any action for the purpose of determining any aspect of comparative negligence or mitigation of damages.”
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.