Sections 12-416 through 12-420 of this title may be used in any civil proceeding in this state and the use or nonuse of seat belts shall be submitted into evidence in any civil suit in Oklahoma unless the plaintiff in such suit is a child under sixteen (16) years of age. Added by Laws 1985, c. 123, § 5, eff. Feb. 1, 1987. Amended by Laws 2005, c. 50, § 13, eff. Nov. 1, 2005; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 11, § 4, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013; Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 11, § 5, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013. NOTE: Laws 2009, c. 228, § 27 was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013) and repealed by Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 11, § 1, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013.
Notes of Decisions
Comer v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 1999 OK 86 (Okla. 1999).
· cites it 38× “: ¶ 2 The dispositive issue presented is whether 47 O.S.1991 § 12-420 [1] of the Oklahoma Mandatory Seat Belt Use Act, [the Act] [2] precludes the introduction of evidence of the use or nonuse of seat belts to support a claim of negligence in a wrongful death action it does.”
Clark v. Mazda Motor Corp., 2003 OK 19 (Okla. 2003).
· cites it 12× “We are asked to answer the question of whether *208 47 O.S.2001, § 12-420 [1] of the Oklahoma Mandatory Seat Belt Act, 47 O.”
Bishop v. Takata Corp., 2000 OK 71 (Okla. 2000).
· cites it 8× “8 *462 T8 The personal representative argues that the Legislature, by enacting 47 O.S.1991 § 12-420, 9 did not intend to abrogate products liability actions resulting from defective seat belts.”
Sims v. Great Am. Life Ins., 469 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 12-420 *884 (barring evidence of the use or non-use of a seatbelt in any civil suit).”
Dexter v. Ford Motor Co., 92 F. App'x 637 (10th Cir. 2004).
“§ 42-4-237(7) (admissible only to prove failure to mitigate non-economic damages); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 47, § 12-420 (inadmissible in any civil action); Utah Code Ann.”
Leon v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 313 F.R.D. 615 (D.N.M. 2016).
“3d at 883 -84 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 12-420 ). Starting with rale 401 and concluding that Erie did not apply, and then looking to Oklahoma law to determine whether the law was procedural or substantive, but not finding Oklahoma cases on point, the Tenth Circuit surveyed…”
Bullock v. Wayne, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (D. Colo. 2009).
“3d at 883 -84 (citing Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 12-420 ). The Sims court looked to Oklahoma law for a determination of whether the law was procedural or substantive.”
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.