Page:Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc.pdf/4

 question of whether section 27-37-703 is unconstitutional. We have not been asked to determine whether respondents' motions are premature; therefore, we will not address Mendoza's argument on this point.

We now turn to respondents' challenge to the constitutionality of section 27-37-703, which provides as follows: "(a)(1) The failure of an occupant to wear a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt shall not be admissible into evidence in a civil action.

(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. Ark. Code Ann. § 27-37-703 (Repl. 2014)."