NJ Child Restraint Law

[knowthelawbttr]

What is the name of your state? NJ
Friend of mine was helping a friend with young child (gave them a ride) and ended up with a ticket for transporting a child without a proper child restraint (kiddy seat). The law in NJ (NJSA 39:3-76.2A) seems to have no exemption even for taxicabs. Does anybody know of any cases where taxis (or friends) have been exempted? How do taxis transport young children? Do they make the passengers supply (and install) kiddy seats? Do they risk (and sometimes/often receive) tickets? Court is coming up in early Jan 2006. Help? Attorneys can email to [email]mathmark@hotmail.com[/email]

[sukharev]

I don't know of any exceptions (maybe emergency would be one). I had to carry my own car seat whenever on the road (taxi, airplane, car rental), or you can indeed request that at extra cost. Indeed this may seem excessive, but just like the seat belt law, is shown to save lives. As a driver, you always are responsible for safety of your passengers and have a choice not to transport kids without proper protection.

Sorry for above rambling, though. My only advice is to go to court, plead guilty with explanation and hope for a deal with no points. Good luck.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by knowthelawbttr

What is the name of your state? NJ
Friend of mine was helping a friend with young child (gave them a ride) and ended up with a ticket for transporting a child without a proper child restraint (kiddy seat). The law in NJ (NJSA 39:3-76.2A) seems to have no exemption even for taxicabs. Does anybody know of any cases where taxis (or friends) have been exempted? How do taxis transport young children? Do they make the passengers supply (and install) kiddy seats? Do they risk (and sometimes/often receive) tickets? Court is coming up in early Jan 2006. Help? Attorneys can email to [email]mathmark@hotmail.com[/email]

There is only one exemption in the statute and that is for busses.


1. Every person operating a motor vehicle, other than a school bus, equipped with safety belts who is transporting a child under the age of eight years and weighing less than 80 pounds on roadways, streets or highways of this State, shall secure the child in a child passenger restraint system or booster seat, as described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213, in a rear seat.

If there are no rear seats, the child shall be secured in a child passenger restraint system or booster seat, as described in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213. In no event shall failure to wear a child passenger restraint system or to use a booster seat be considered as contributory negligence, nor shall the failure to wear the child passenger restraint system be admissible as evidence in the trial of any civil action.

2. Section 2 of P.L.1984, c.179 (C.39:3-76.2f) is amended to read as follows:C.39:3-76.2f Seat belt usage requirements for persons ages 8-18; driver's responsibility.

2. a. Except as provided in P.L.1983, c.128 (C.39:3-76.2a et al.) for children under eight years of age and weighing less than 80 pounds, all passengers under eight years of age and weighing more than 80 pounds, and all passengers who are at least eight years of age but less than 18 years of age, and each driver and front seat passenger of a passenger automobile operated on a street or highway in this State shall wear a properly adjusted and fastened safety seat belt system as defined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 209.

b. The driver of a passenger automobile shall secure or cause to be secured in a properly adjusted and fastened safety seat belt system, as defined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 209, any passenger who is at least eight years of age but less than 18 years of age.

For the purposes of the "Passenger Automobile Seat Belt Usage Act," the term "passenger automobile" shall include vans, pick-up trucks and utility vehicles.

[sukharev]

So it boils down to age and weight, and while the law does not provide it, there should be some reasonable tolerance for the driver who is not familiar with the child and no experience carrying kids on regular basis (like give or take a few years, and considerable leeway in weight). In addition, when pleading guilty with explanation, your friend can say that he does not have children, and therefore was not familiar with exact requirements. Yes, it's not an excuse, just could be something to say as a reasonable explanation.

[BelizeBreeze]

Originally Posted by sukharev

So it boils down to age and weight, and while the law does not provide it, there should be some reasonable tolerance for the driver who is not familiar with the child and no experience carrying kids on regular basis (like give or take a few years, and considerable leeway in weight). In addition, when pleading guilty with explanation, your friend can say that he does not have children, and therefore was not familiar with exact requirements. Yes, it's not an excuse, just could be something to say as a reasonable explanation.

And if he's a taxi driver then that argument will fall on deaf ears.

[sukharev]

Originally Posted by BelizeBreeze

And if he's a taxi driver then that argument will fall on deaf ears.

Yep, although may depend on experience and location. I doubt new taxi driver in business distict of NYC has to carry that many kids, and don't know if they get any training at all (aside from their driving license)