New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 66-7-373 (2026)

Enforcement programs

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Failure to be secured by a child passenger restraint device or by a safety belt as required by the Safety Belt Use Act [66-7-370 NMSA 1978] shall not in any instance constitute fault or negligence and shall not limit or apportion damages.

B. The bureau in cooperation with the state department of public education and the department of health shall, to the extent that funding allows, provide education to encourage compliance with the use of restraint devices in reducing the risk of harm to their users as well as to others.

C. The bureau shall evaluate the effectiveness of the Safety Belt Use Act and shall include a report of its findings in the annual evaluation report on its highway safety plan that it submits to the national highway traffic safety administration and the federal highway administration under 23 U.S.C. 402.

D. The provisions of the Safety Belt Use Act shall be enforced whether or not associated with the enforcement of any other statute.

History: Laws 1985, ch. 131, § 4; 1989, ch. 317, § 2; 1991, ch. 192, § 8; 1993, ch. 349, § 1; 2001, ch. 191, § 2.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2001 amendment, effective June 15, 2001, in Subsections B and C, substituted "The bureau" for "The traffic safety bureau of the state highway and transportation department".

The 1993 amendment, effective July 1, 1993, added present Subsection A, redesignated former Subsections A through C as present Subsections B through D, and substituted "department of health" for "health and environment department" in Subsection B.

The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, deleted "penalties" at the end of the catchline; deleted former Subsection A, relating to penalties for violating Subsection A of Section 66-7-372 NMSA 1978; deleted former Subsection B which read "Failure to be secured by a child passenger restraint device or by a safety belt as required by the Safety Belt Use Act shall not in any instance constitute fault or negligence and shall not limit or apportion damages"; redesignated former Subsections C to E as Subsections A to C; inserted "of the state highway department and transportation department" in Subsections A and B; and, in Subsection C, deleted "and to educate the persons in the program regarding the requirements and penalties specified in the Safety Belt Use Act" at the end and made minor stylistic changes.

The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, substituted "penalties" for "penalty" in the catchline, made a minor stylistic change in Subsection A, and substituted "traffic safety bureau" for "transportation department" near the beginning of Subsections C and D.

Constitutionality. — Subsection B (now Subsection A) does not violate the equal protection provisions of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 754 F. Supp. 1526 (D.N.M. 1990), rev'd in part on other grounds, 19 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1994).

Affecting rights in pending cases. — It was not error to exclude evidence of the plaintiff's failure to use seat belts because the defendant had no right or remedy with regard to seat belts prior to the adoption of this section, and applying the section did violate the prohibition against affecting rights in pending cases contained in N.M. Const., art. IV, § 34. Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 1995-NMCA-066, 120 N.M. 261, 901 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 68, 898 P.2d 120.

Separation of powers. — This section does not violate the separation of powers doctrine since it is within the power of the legislature to determine whether to impose as a matter of state policy an obligation on citizens to wear a seat belt and to establish sanctions for non-conformity with that obligation. Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 1995-NMCA-066, 120 N.M. 261, 901 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 68, 898 P.2d 120.

Due process issues. — Limiting the defendant's use of a seat belt defense did not violate due process. Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 1995-NMCA-066, 120 N.M. 261, 901 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 68, 898 P.2d 120.

Seat belt non-use. — This section bars consideration of seat belt non-use in a comparative fault analysis of liability. Rodriguez v. Williams, 2015-NMCA-074, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-006. Where defendant, who was driving while intoxicated, ran a red light and struck plaintiff’s vehicle, the district court did not err when it concluded that Subsection A of this section barred it from considering the fact that plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt in determining plaintiff’s comparative negligence. Rodriguez v. Williams, 2015-NMCA-074, cert. denied, 2015-NMCERT-006.

Use of seat belt defense to prove causation prohibited. — The consideration of evidence that the plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt in order to prove causation is prohibited by this section. Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 1995-NMCA-066, 120 N.M. 261, 901 P.2d 192, cert. denied, 120 N.M. 68, 898 P.2d 120.

Use of seat belt defense to reduce damages prohibited. — The nonuse of available seat belts by rear seat passengers cannot be used to reduce their recovery of damages. Norwest Bank N.M. v. Chrysler Corp., 1999-NMCA-070, 127 N.M. 397, 981 P.2d 1215, cert. denied, 127 N.M. 389, 981 P.2d 1207.

Seat belt evidence in mitigation of punitive damages. — In an action against an automobile manufacturer arising from an accident in which several occupants were ejected from a minivan, evidence of defendant's general corporate policy of encouraging seat belt use was allowable to mitigate a claim for punitive damages. Norwest Bank N.M. v. Chrysler Corp., 1999-NMCA-070, 127 N.M. 397, 981 P.2d 1215, cert. denied, 127 N.M. 389, 981 P.2d 1207.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico law of torts, see 16 N.M.L. Rev. 85 (1986).

For note, "The New Case for the 'Seat Belt Defense' - Norwest Bank New Mexico, NA v. Chrysler Corporation," see 30 N.M.L. Rev. 403 (2000).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1986–2020 · leading case: Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corp., 981 P.2d 1215 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corp., 981 P.2d 1215 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 46× “See NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (1993); Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods.”

Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 901 P.2d 192 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 38× “In 1991, the Legislature amended Section 66-7-373 by deleting Subsection B.”

Rodriguez v. Williams, 2015 NMCA 074 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 31× “Statutory Interpretation of Section 66-7-373 (A) {14} Defendant asserts that the district court erred when it concluded that Section 66-7-373(A) barred it from considering the fact that Plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt in determining Plaintiff’s comparative negligence.”

Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 754 F. Supp. 1526 (D.N.M. 1990). · cites it 8× “Defendant argues that N.M.Stat.Ann. § 66-7-373 B. (Supp.1990) does not prohibit the jury from apportioning fault and damages as a consequence of Armijo’s failure to use a seat belt and if it does, then the statute is unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers…”

Frederick v. Swift Transp. Co., 616 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2010). “See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-373 (A) (“Failure to be secured by a child passenger restraint device or by a safety belt as required by the Safety Belt Use Act shall not in any instance constitute fault or negligence and shall not limit or apportion damages.”

Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2004). “§ 31-5-1402 (f) (inadmissible in any civil action); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-373 (inadmissible to establish fault or negligence or to limit or apportion damages).”

Dahlberg v. MCT Transp., LLC, 571 F. App'x 641 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “She claims that the repeated seat-belt references violated New Mexico’s Safety Belt Use Act: See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 66-7-373 (A) (West 2008) (“Failure to be secured .”

Madaris v. State of Oregon High. Div., 723 P.2d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “2a; NM Stat Ann § 66-7-373(B); NC Gen Stat § 20-135.”

Rodriguez v. Williams (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 25× “The district court 18 declined to consider the fact that Plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt in its 19 comparative fault analysis because NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (2001) prohibits such 2 1 consideration.”

Martinez v. Cont'l Tire The Americas, LLC (D.N.M. 2020). · cites it 11× “”) covered by NMSA § 66-7-373, Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico law is “clear: specific evidence of the nonuse of seat belts is simply inadmissible,”), quoting in part Norwest Bank New Mexico v.”

State v. Hernandez (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (2001) (providing that failure to use a safety belt 2 “shall not in any instance constitute fault or negligence”).”

State v. Hernandez (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (2001) (providing that failure to use a safety belt “shall not in any instance constitute fault or negligence”).”

— N.M. Stat. § 66-7-373(A) — 7 cases

Norwest Bank New Mexico, N.A. v. Chrysler Corp., 981 P.2d 1215 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). “See NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (1993); Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods.”

Rodriguez v. Williams, 2015 NMCA 074 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “Statutory Interpretation of Section 66-7-373 (A) {14} Defendant asserts that the district court erred when it concluded that Section 66-7-373(A) barred it from considering the fact that Plaintiff was not wearing a seat belt in determining Plaintiff’s comparative negligence.”

Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 901 P.2d 192 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “In 1991, the Legislature amended Section 66-7-373 by deleting Subsection B.”

Rodriguez v. Williams (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “The district court 18 declined to consider the fact that Plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt in its 19 comparative fault analysis because NMSA 1978, § 66-7-373(A) (2001) prohibits such 2 1 consideration.”

Martinez v. Cont'l Tire The Americas, LLC (D.N.M. 2020). “”) covered by NMSA § 66-7-373, Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico law is “clear: specific evidence of the nonuse of seat belts is simply inadmissible,”), quoting in part Norwest Bank New Mexico v.”

— N.M. Stat. § 66-7-373(B) — 2 cases

Mott v. Sun Country Garden Prods., Inc., 901 P.2d 192 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “In 1991, the Legislature amended Section 66-7-373 by deleting Subsection B.”

Madaris v. State of Oregon High. Div., 723 P.2d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “2a; NM Stat Ann § 66-7-373(B); NC Gen Stat § 20-135.”

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.