Mendoza v. WIS International, Inc./Dissent Baker
KAREN R. BAKER, 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 seat passenger." Turning to the facts of this case, the certification order states that "[Mendoza] was a passenger in the backseat of a vehicle operated by Defendant Anthony Adams when Adams fell asleep at the wheel and ran into the back of a parked excavator." (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, because Mendoza was neither a driver nor a front-seat passenger, Subchapter 7 is inapplicable under the facts of this case. It is well settled that this court does not render advisory opinions or answer academic questions. Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers, 330 Ark. 298, 954 S.W.2d 221 (1997). Thus, because Subchapter 7 is inapplicable, the majority errs in its consideration of the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. section 27-37-703.
Therefore, under the facts in this case, I would answer the certified question in the negative and must respectfully dissent from the majority's consideration of a statutory provision that is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this case.