Plaintiffs argued that evidence of failure to use a seat belt should be excluded because that conduct could not have caused the accident, and a plaintiff should not be required to anticipate
negligent conduct by the defendant; the Court rejected that argument based largely on the language of the proportionate responsibility statute, which focuses on the
various parties» roles in causing «the personal injury» or the «harm for which recovery of damages is sought,» rather than simply the occurrence that led to the injury.