N.J. Stat. » Title 39 — MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC REGULATION
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 39:3-76.2 (2026)

Safety belts or restraining devices

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person shall sell or operate any passenger automobile manufactured after July 1, 1966, and registered in this State unless such passenger automobile is equipped with at least two sets of seat safety belts for the front seat of the passenger automobile and the anchorage units necessary for their attachment or other suitable restraining device. Such seat safety belts and anchorage units or such restraining device shall be of a type approved by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Law and Public Safety, and in making any such approval the director shall be guided by the specifications of the Society of Automotive Engineers and the standards of the Federal Department of Transportation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002). · cites it 8× “Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several…”
Connelly v. Hyundai Motor Co., 351 F.3d 535 (1st Cir. 2003). “, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:3-76.2 (h). 11 . Hyundai claimed that because Eduardo was not wearing his seatbelt and sitting too close to the airbag at the time of the accident, any airbag (no matter its aggressiveness) would have killed him.”
Nunez v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 562 (D.N.J. 2002). “It is critical to recognize that while at the time Waterson was decided, New Jersey law required motorists to wear seat belts when driving, see N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f), 2 the court was called upon to determine what the law was in 1980, at a time when “the law required that…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Almark L. Alston (17-08-2074 & 17-10-2872, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2020). · cites it 2× “In considering these principles, we agree with the State and the motion judge that Detective Molina had a lawful basis to stop the Jeep based upon his observation that the driver was not using a seatbelt.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Nicole D. Zambrano-quillen (15-04-0268, Gloucester Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “39:4-96; failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2; and having an open container of alcohol in her vehicle, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. John J. Cantalupo (13-07-1772, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “39:4-96; failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f); failure to observe traffic signals, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Enoc Pimentel (15-06-0517, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant was arrested and issued two motor vehicle summonses for violations of Title 39: (1) failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f), and (2) driving with a suspended license, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Jerome Griffin (16-12-1852, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “As he was doing so, Katsoulis noticed that the female passenger was not wearing a seatbelt, which is a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2. Co-defendant Alegre was the female passenger and defendant was the front seat passenger.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Jerome Griffin (16-12-1852, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). “As he was doing so, Katsoulis noticed that the female passenger was not wearing a seatbelt, which is a violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2. Co-defendant Alegre was the female passenger and defendant was the front seat passenger.”
— N.J. Stat. § 39:3-76.2(e) — 1 case
Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002). “Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several…”
— N.J. Stat. § 39:3-76.2(f) — 4 cases
Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002). “Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several…”
Nunez v. Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 562 (D.N.J. 2002). “It is critical to recognize that while at the time Waterson was decided, New Jersey law required motorists to wear seat belts when driving, see N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f), 2 the court was called upon to determine what the law was in 1980, at a time when “the law required that…”
State of New Jersey Vs. John J. Cantalupo (13-07-1772, Ocean Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “39:4-96; failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f); failure to observe traffic signals, N.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Enoc Pimentel (15-06-0517, Passaic Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant was arrested and issued two motor vehicle summonses for violations of Title 39: (1) failure to wear a seatbelt, N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f), and (2) driving with a suspended license, N.”
— N.J. Stat. § 39:3-76.2(f)(b) — 1 case
Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002). “Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several…”
— N.J. Stat. § 39:3-76.2(g) — 1 case
Stehlik v. Rhoads, 2002 WI 73 (Wis. 2002). “Since the determination of Waterson that the enactment of N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(e) et seq. reinforced a public policy encouraging the use of seat belts, and since those statutes require the driver and front seat passenger to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt, several…”
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.