fact that Mr. Milbrand was not wearing his seat belt at the time of the accident at issue in this case. DaimlerChrysler has also failed to meet its burden regarding its claims that the Texas seat belt statute is unconstitutional. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED, that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Testimony of Dr. Robert Banks, M.D. is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the any evidence concerning the use or nonuse of seat belts by either Mr. or Mrs. Milbrand shall be excluded. 1 . Although this Circuit has not directly ruled on the application of § 545.413(g), it has had occasion to find a forum state's law controlling when considering the admissibility of seat belt evidence. See Hermann v. General Motors Corp., 720 F.2d 414, 415 (5th Cir.1983)(<HOLDING>). 2 . Many states have chosen to reject the
holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding the court was enebound by louisiana decisional law regarding the plaintiffs use or nonuse of his seat belt holding that restriction against decompilation or disassembly contained in license agreement authorized under louisiana law was unenforceable due to federal preemption of louisiana statute