Page:Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.pdf/14

 (2) Provided, that evidence of the failure may be admitted in a civil action as to the causal relationship between noncompliance and the injuries alleged, if the following conditions have been satisfied:

(A) The plaintiff has filed a products liability claim other than a claim related to an alleged failure of a seat belt;

(B) The defendant alleging noncompliance with this subchapter shall raise this defense in its answer or timely amendment thereto in accordance with the rules of civil procedure; and

(C) Each defendant seeking to offer evidence alleging noncompliance has the burden of proving:

(i) Noncompliance;

(ii) That compliance would have reduced injuries; and

(iii) The extent of the reduction of the injuries.

(b)(1) Upon request of any party, the trial judge shall hold a hearing out of the presence of the jury as to the admissibility of such evidence in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules of evidence.

(2) The finding of the trial judge shall not constitute a finding of fact, and the finding shall be limited to the issue of admissibility of such evidence.

When we interpret a statute, our goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. State v. Colvin, 2013 Ark. 203, 427 S.W.3d 635. The process requires us to place the statute beside other statutes relevant to the subject matter in question so that we can derive the meaning and effect from the whole. Id. Statutes relating to the same subject must be construed together and in harmony, if possible. Id.

As stated previously, section 27-37-703 is part of the Arkansas Mandatory Seat Belt Use Law. From its inception as Act 562 of 1991, the law was intended by the legislature to