Page:Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.pdf/10

 of powers under article 4, § 2 and amendment 80, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional.

Certified question answered.

B, H, and W, JJ., dissent.

K R. B, Justice, dissenting. Based on the record before the court, I cannot join the majority opinion, and I therefore respectfully dissent. The question of law certified to this court is as follows: "Under the facts of this case, does Arkansas Code Annotated section 27-37-703, which restricts the admissibility of seatbelt-nonuse evidence in civil actions, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine found in article IV, section 2, of the Arkansas Constitution?"

The answer to this certified question of law should be answered in the negative.

A particular provision in a statute must be construed with reference to the statute as a whole. ''Flowers v. Norman Oaks Constr. Co.'', 341 Ark. 474, 17 S.W.3d 472 (2000) (citing Boyd v. State, 313 Ark. 171, 853 S.W.2d 263 (1993)).

At issue is Chapter 37 of Title 27, which governs equipment regulations. Subchapter 7 is entitled "Mandatory Seat Belt Use." Section 27-37-702, "Seat belt use required–Applicability of subchapter," provides in pertinent part: "Each driver and front seat passenger in any motor vehicle operated on a street or highway in this state shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt properly secured to the vehicle."

Ark. Code Ann. § 27-37-702(a) (emphasis added). Thus, pursuant to the plain language of Ark. Code Ann. section 27-37-702, Subchapter 7 is only applicable to "each driver and front