Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (2026)
Duty, standard of care, right or liability between operator and passenger; contributory or comparative negligence; entry of violation on driving record
✓ current as of July 2026
This chapter shall not be construed to create a duty, standard of care, right or liability between the operator and passenger of any passenger motor vehicle which is not recognized under the laws of the State of Mississippi as such laws exist on March 20, 1990, or as such laws may at any time thereafter be constituted by statute or court decision. Failure to provide and use a seat belt restraint device or system shall not be considered contributory or comparative negligence, nor shall the violation be entered on the driving record of any individual.
Laws, 1990, ch. 436, § 2, eff. 3/20/1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: Est. of Hunter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 729 So. 2d 1264 (Miss. 1999).
Est. of Hunter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 729 So. 2d 1264 (Miss. 1999). “Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the non-use of seat-belts in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 63-2-3? Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the failure of the plaintiffs to wear seat belts could be considered as evidence of contributory…”
Palmer v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 905 So. 2d 564 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (Rev.1996). I find the majority's interpretation of the controlling principles to be correct.”
Herring v. Poirrier, 797 So. 2d 797 (Miss. 2000). “Herring argues that because Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (1996) prohibits a defendant from questioning a plaintiff regarding his non-use of a seat belt, this Court should likewise prohibit a defendant from questioning a plaintiff regarding his use of a seat belt.”
Boyd Tunica, Inc. v. Premier Transp. Servs., Inc., 30 So. 3d 1242 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Thereafter, on February 27, 2008, Premier filed a motion in limine to exclude all reference to seat belts, arguing that Mississippi Code Annotated section 63-2-3 (Rev.2004) provides that evidence of the failure to wear seat belts is not admissible to prove negligence.”
Palmer v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 904 So. 2d 1077 (Miss. 2005). “The reason stated by the Court of Appeals for finding seat belt use by Anne Palmer and the Palmer family inadmissible, was that such evidence could have been interpreted as negligence, violating Miss.Code Ann. § 63-2-3, which provides: This chapter shall not be construed to…”
Roberts v. Grafe Auto Co., Inc., 701 So. 2d 1093 (Miss. 1997). “Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 states: This chapter shall not be construed to create a duty, standard of care, right or liability between the operator and passenger of any passenger motor vehicle which is not recognized under the laws of the State of Mississippi as such laws exist on…”
Jones v. Panola Cnty., 725 So. 2d 774 (Miss. 1998). “Jones filed this motion on March 11, 1996, citing Miss.Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (1996), which provides that: This chapter shall not be construed to create a duty, standard of care, right or liability between the operator and passenger of any passenger motor vehicle which is not…”
Rougeau v. Hyundai Motor Am., 805 So. 2d 147 (La. 2002). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 63-2-3. In spite of this broad prohibition, the court held: .”
Joseph L. Hunter v. Gen. Motors Corp. (Miss. 1996). “Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the non-use of seatbelts in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 ? Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the failure of the plaintiffs to wear seat belts could be considered as evidence of contributory…”
Hyundai Motor Am. & Hyundai Motor Co. v. Ola Mae Applewhite, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Dorothy Mae Applewhite, Ceola Wade, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Anthony J. Stewart, & Kenneth Cordell Carter, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of & Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Cecilia Cooper (Miss. 2021). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (Rev. 2013). The Court has cautioned that Section 63-2-3 “should be enforced as written and is not given overbroad application, lest the statute be considered an improper evidentiary statute rather than a substantive one.”
Kenneth Herring v. Joseph Poirrier (Miss. 1998). “Herring argues that because Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 (1996) prohibits a defendant from questioning a plaintiff regarding his non-use of a seat belt, this Court should likewise prohibit a defendant from questioning a plaintiff regarding his use of a seat belt.”
Randal R. Palmer v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Miss. 2001). “The reason stated by the Court of Appeals for finding seat belt use by Anne Palmer and the Palmer family inadmissible, was that such evidence could have been interpreted as negligence, violating Miss. Code Ann. § 63-2-3 , which provides: This chapter shall not be construed to…”
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.