POLISCOPE
Back to bills
Part ofMotor Vehicles →

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
H 694IDAHOSession 2026State Billdead
Did Not Advance

Idaho House Bill 694 bars using seatbelt non-use as evidence to limit civil damages in injury lawsuits

Original title: RULES OF THE ROAD – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding the failure to use safety restraints as evidence in civil actions to limit an injured party’s damages.

Last action · February 17, 2026: Reported Printed and Referred to Judiciary, Rules & Administration

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓
Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

Official description

RULES OF THE ROAD – Amends existing law to revise provisions regarding the failure to use safety restraints as evidence in civil actions to limit an injured party’s damages.

Why it matters

The bill alters how civil lawsuits involving motor vehicle accidents are litigated in Idaho by prohibiting defendants from arguing that an injured party's failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to their injuries for the purpose of reducing financial recovery.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Motor vehicle occupants

Occupants are required to wear safety restraints in vehicles under 8,000 pounds and are protected from having seatbelt non-use used against them to reduce damages in civil injury lawsuits.

Directly affected

Casualty insurers

Insurers are prohibited from treating seatbelt violation convictions as moving traffic violations for the purpose of establishing motor vehicle insurance rates.

Directly affected

Civil litigants

Key Facts

  • Failure to use a safety restraint cannot be considered under any circumstances as evidence of contributory or comparative negligence in any civil action regarding negligence.
  • Seatbelt non-use is inadmissible as evidence for the purpose of limiting an injured party's damages in a civil lawsuit.
  • Occupants of motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of not more than 8,000 pounds manufactured with safety restraints must wear them properly fastened when the vehicle is in motion.
  • Exemptions from the seatbelt requirement include individuals with a physician's written medical statement, occupants of motorcycles, implements of husbandry, emergency vehicles, fully occupied seating, and mail carriers adhering to postal safety rules.
Show all 9 facts
  • A citation for failing to wear a safety restraint carries a fine of ten dollars ($10.00).
  • Citations for seatbelt violations do not result in violation point counts or affect motor vehicle insurance rates.
  • Law enforcement officers may enforce seatbelt provisions only as a secondary action when a driver has been detained for another suspected law violation.
  • The department must conduct an educational program to encourage compliance if sufficient private donations or federal funds are available.
  • The department must evaluate the provisions and include findings in its annual highway safety plan report under 23 U.S.C. section 402.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an insurance company raise my rates if I get a seatbelt citation?
No. A conviction for a seatbelt violation under this section shall not be deemed a for establishing motor vehicle insurance rates charged by a casualty insurer.
Does failing to wear a seatbelt reduce the financial damages I can recover in an injury lawsuit?
No. Under the proposed changes, failure to use a safety restraint cannot be considered as evidence of comparative negligence or used to limit an injured party's damages in any civil action.
Can police pull a vehicle over solely for a seatbelt violation?
No. Enforcement of these provisions by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when the operator has been detained for a suspected violation of another law.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · in House committee.

Procedural history

2 actions
  1. Feb 17, 2026Committee
    Reported Printed and Referred to Judiciary, Rules & Administration
  2. Feb 16, 2026Introduced
    Introduced, read first time, referred to JRA for Printing

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Connected Entities

Federal Highway Administration, United States Postal Service, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and 1 more
OrganizationFederal Highway Administration“Recipient of the department's annual evaluation report.”Map →
OrganizationUnited States Postal Service“Mentioned regarding safety practices for mail carriers.”Map →
OrganizationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration“Recipient of the department's annual evaluation report.”Map →
OrganizationLegislature of the State of Idaho“The legislative body passing the bill.”Map →

Sources

Open source document

legislature.idaho.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 65)
  • Controversy50
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment5
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz25
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record