Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...1244 , 99 L.Ed.2d 442 (1988). Because the evidence supported a verdict that appellants intended to distribute cocaine base, the district court correctly sentenced the appellants. Ill For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 1 . Fla.Stat.Ann. § 316.614 (West Supp.1989) provides in relevant part: (4) It is unlawful for any person: (b) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt....

...ry Council, Inc., Amicus Curiae. ANSTEAD, Justice. We have for review a decision of the First District Court of Appeal passing upon the following question certified to be of great public importance: IF EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 316.614, FLORIDA STATUTES, "THE FLORIDA SAFETY BELT LAW," AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE VIOLATION CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF, SHOULD FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION 4.11 (VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION AS EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE) BE GIVEN? Safety Kleen Corp....

...LAW and ANALYSIS Certified Question We first directly address the certified question. We find Florida case law clearly supports the district court's conclusion that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the seat belt statute and the effect of its violation. [1] Section 316.614, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in part: (4) It is unlawful for any person: (a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each front seat passenger of the vehicle under the age of 16 years is restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s....

...(10) A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. § 316.614(4), (5), (10), Fla.Stat....

...its deliberations. 587 So.2d at 614. These holdings support a conclusion that the trial court erred in failing to inform the jury that a violation of the Florida traffic regulation mandating the use of seat belts constitutes evidence of negligence. Section 316.614(10) of the seat belt statute may be somewhat confusing, but it expressly provides, consistent with the language of instruction 4.11, that "such violation [of the statute requiring the use of a seat belt] may be considered as evidence...

...igence contributed to plaintiff's injuries. [3] Thus, the *938 refusal to instruct the jury on this point cannot be considered harmless. Robinson, 611 So.2d at 608. Evolution of the Seat Belt Defense [4] We also hold, consistent with the language of section 316.614(10), that the failure to wear a seat belt should be properly raised by alleging the failure and its contributing effect to a claimant's damages as an issue of comparative negligence....

...nsider this factor, along with all other facts in evidence, in deciding whether the damages for which defendant may otherwise be liable should be reduced. George N. Meros, Jr. & Mary W. Chaisson, The Seat Belt Defense is Alive and Well Under Amended Section 316.614, 14 Trial.Advoc.Q. 9, 10 (Jan.1995) (quoting Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d at 454). 1986 Safety Belt Law In 1986, following our decision in Pasakarnis, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida Safety Belt Law. [7] Ch. 86-49, § 2, Laws of Fla. (codified at § 316.614(1)-(10), Fla....

...[8] The Florida Safety Belt Law makes it unlawful for a driver to operate a vehicle or for a person sixteen years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat unless restrained by a safety belt. A front seat passenger under sixteen years of age must wear a safety belt or a child restraint device. § 316.614(4), (5), Fla.Stat....

...Echoing some of the language used in Pasakarnis, subsection (10) of the newly enacted law stated: "A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence in any civil action." § 316.614(10), Fla.Stat....

...itigate damages. Meros & Chaisson, supra, at 10. [9] These concerns and the continuing debate over the use of seat belts and the effect of their nonuse in litigation resulted in the legislature's reexamination of the issue in 1990. 1990 Amendment to Section 316.614(10) An amendment initially proposed in 1990 would have added two important phrases to *941 subsection (10) of section 316.614....

...n be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. Ch. 90-119, § 24, at 382, Laws of Fla. [10] The amendment of section 316.614 in 1990 has led some to conclude that the legislature meant to do away with the use of the seat belt defense in civil actions as established in Pasakarnis....

...We also conclude that instruction 6.14 should no longer be used when a seat belt defense is pled as an affirmative defense. For example, the seat-belt statute makes no exception to its strict terms as to whether the vehicle is equipped with an available and fully operational seat belt. See § 316.614(4), (5), Fla.Stat....

...' argument that the standard instruction concerning the seat belt defense was sufficient and precluded the giving of an additional instruction on the traffic statute. The following exchange took place at the charge conference: [PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL]: 316.614, it's my objection....

...t these standard instructions. THE COURT: I will agree. I am going to deny this, of course your objection is certainly noted for the record. [2] A committee note states that the Standard Jury Instructions Committee takes no position on the effect of section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes, on Florida Standard Jury Instruction (Civil) 6.14....

...However, the regulation gives states an opportunity to preclude the introduction of automatic protection systems by adopting mandatory seat belt laws which meet certain criteria. [9] In American Automobile Ass'n v. Tehrani, 508 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the First District addressed the question of whether section 316.614, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), "establish[ed] and control[led] the parameters of the Pasakarnis `seat belt defense.'" Id....

...Citation to the study indicates a strong public policy concern that seat belt use be encouraged. The Senate Staff Analysis came to similar conclusions. In its analysis, the Senate staff found that the sweeping amendment initially proposed to subsection (10) of section 316.614 would not only increase recoveries by plaintiffs, but would also increase the cost of automobile insurance by denying defendants and their insurance companies the use of the seat belt defense to mitigate damages....

...We concede that some of the language from the Pasakarnis opinion may have contributed to this concern. See supra note 6. Citing to the Tehrani decision, a Senate staff analysis concluded that the common law seat belt defense rule had survived the enactment of section 316.614 and operated in conjunction with the statute....

...Barker, 35 N.Y.2d 444, 363 N.Y.S.2d 916, 921, 323 N.E.2d 164, 168 (1974). [14] As discussed earlier herein, despite the strict language in the seat belt statute, the legislature did not make the failure to wear a seat belt negligence per se or prima facie evidence of negligence. § 316.614(10)....

...person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. [401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person ......

...OREPERSON *826 NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...appellant. As to appellant's second issue on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's qualification of expert witnesses. The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED. JOANOS, LAWRENCE and DAVIS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] Appellant cites section 316.614(5), Florida Statutes, which makes it unlawful for anyone over age 16 to be a front seat passenger unless restrained by a safety belt when the motor vehicle is in motion....

...Most of the arguments put forward by appellees Tehrani and Lorestani in their motions for rehearing are impermissible reargument. The appellees' remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit. These issues include Tehrani's argument that our 1986 Legislature's passage of the Florida Safety Belt Law, § 316.614, Fla....

...or the purpose of issuing a citation.") (citing Cresswell v. State, 564 So.2d 480 (Fla.1990)); see also Welch v. State, 741 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). The vehicle in which Hatcher was riding was stopped for violations of sections 316.151(1) and 316.614(5), Florida Statutes (2000)....

...Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037 (5th Cir.1980)); see also Jeffries, 797 So.2d at 578 (quoting Ruiz ). The State argues that Hatcher was observed riding in the passenger seat without a seat belt as the vehicle pulled into the parking lot. Because it is unlawful, according to section 316.614(5), Florida Statutes (2000), for any person eighteen years old or over to be a passenger in the front seat without utilizing the seat belt and because the driver or passenger may be issued a citation for violation of the seat belt req...

...THE SEATBELT DEFENSE Brito also challenges entry of partial summary judgment which found that the decedent was comparatively negligent for failing to wear his seatbelt at the time the collision occurred, and that such comparative negligence was a legal cause of his injury. Notwithstanding, section 316.614 Florida Statutes (1993), [7] the undisputed facts in this case demonstrate that Sandy's failure to wear a seatbelt, and his subsequent ejection from the jeep leading to his fatal injuries, constituted negligence as a matter of law....

...the chance to depose Arsob. Although we believe the better practice would have been to either continue the hearing or delay entry of summary judgment until such discovery was concluded, our reversal on the duty to warn issue moots this argument. [7] Section 316.614 states, in pertinent part, A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall a violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. Fla.Stat. § 316.614(10) (1993).

...Whether an officer's suspicion is reasonable is determined by the totality of the circumstances which existed at the time of the stop and is based solely on facts known to the officer before the stop. See McCloud v. State, 491 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Section 316.614(5), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person 16 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion....

...person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. [401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that "[i]t is unlawful for any person ......

...___ FOREPERSON NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...tion is not evidence of negligence. E.g., § 316.613, Fla. Stat. (19871997) (failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint inadmissible in civil action as evidence of negligence). The committee takes no position on the effect on SJI 6.14 of § 316.614(10), Fla....

...Leroy would result in an anomaly "in Florida law because injured children between the ages of six and eighteen would be allowed to recover in a negligence action against a caretaker based on evidence that the child was not *654 properly restrained by a seat belt under section 316.614, Florida Statutes, see Cybroski v. Wright, 927 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), but injured children five years of age or younger would not be allowed to recover based on the prohibition of similar evidence under section 316.613(3). Both sections 316.613 and 316.614 were enacted in large part to protect children from injuries in automobile accidents, yet, according to the argument advanced by Mrs....

...However, defendant Pages has raised the affirmative defense of failure to wear a seat belt. By statute, failure to wear a seat belt may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence and not in mitigation of damages, which accordingly may affect the apportionment of liability between the parties. § 316.614(10), Fla....

...r disqualification. We do, however, agree that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the seat belt defense. The trial court should not have granted summary judgment on the seat belt defense, as Penland relied on an amended version of section 316.614(10), which provides in pertinent part: A violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, though such a...

...the jury could make from the evidence, then there could be nothing prejudicial about the expert's testimony. Even with the wide range of discretion given to a trial judge, I would reverse the order granting a new trial. I concur that the version of section 316.614(10) prior to the 1990 amendment is controlling in this case.

...usan Curtis' failure to wear a seat belt. The Court in entering judgment will make the appropriate reduction. [4] We note that, in 1986, the legislature enacted the "Florida Safety Belt Law," requiring the use of seat belts by front seat passengers. § 316.614, Fla....

punishable as [a noncriminal traffic infraction].” § 316,614(7)-(8), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). Clearly

...[3] Such a construction was in fact placed upon the Tennessee statute by the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, in Stallcup v. Taylor, 62 Tenn. App. 407, 463 S.W.2d 416 (1970). [4] The Pasakarnis rule has since been statutorily codified in Florida. See § 316.614, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1986), and American Auto. Ass'n v. Tehrani, 508 So.2d 365, 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (on rehearing). Section 316.613(3) also remains intact following the adoption of section 316.614....

...f 2 FOREPERSON NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...to watch over, supervise, and protect their children who are too young to exercise judgment to care for themselves."). In granting summary judgment in favor of the parents, the trial court concluded that the Florida Safety Belt Law, Florida Statutes section 316.614, [1] precluded a cause of action. Pursuant to section 316.614(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), it is illegal to "operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger and the operator of the vehicle under the age of 18 years are restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s....

...316.613, if applicable." A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action. § 316.614(10), Fla....

..."[T]he presumption is that no change in the common law is intended unless the statute is explicit in this regard." Id. (citation omitted). *1091 In Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934, 941 (Fla.1996), the supreme court explained that "the 1990 amendment [of section 316.614] was enacted to clarify and standardize the manner in which a plaintiff's failure to use a seat belt was to be utilized in a civil action, and to preclude the possibility that an injured plaintiff would be penalized twice for failing to use an available seat belt." There is no indication the Legislature intended to eliminate a parent's liability for failing to protect his or her child. Thus, contrary to the parents' assertions, section 316.614 did not displace the common law right to bring a cause of action for a parent's failure to exercise a duty of care....

...Section 316.613 refers to the use of child restraint devices when transporting children five years of age or younger. Because Melanie was twelve-years-old at the time of the accident, we assume the trial court's reference to section 316.613, instead of section 316.614, was a scrivener's error.

...iolation is not evidence of negligence. E.g., § 316.613, Fla. Stat. (1987) (failure to provide and use a child passenger restraint inadmissible in civil action as evidence of negligence). The committee takes no position on the effect on SJI 6.14 of § 316.614(10), Fla....

...liable should be reduced. Id. at 454. In 1986 the Florida Legislature enacted the Florida Safety Belt Law, which established that it is unlawful “[t]o operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.” § 316.614(4)(b), Fla. Stat....

...The statute provides that a violation “shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action.” § 316.614(10), Fla....

...r was put in motion without his knowledge or consent. Thus, his failure to buckle up cannot be used against him. This argument, however, enables Williams to take advantage of his own voluntary inebriation to avoid the standard of care established by section 316.614, Florida Statutes....

...wheels), § 316.303 (ban on television receivers), § 316.304 (ban on headsets), §§ 316.500-316.555 (weight and length limits), 316.600 (health and sanitation hazards), § 316.610 (safety of vehicle), § 316.613 (child restraint requirements), and § 316.614 (safety belt usage)....

exempt from the safety belt requirements of section 316.614, Florida Statutes. However, a van designed

Statutes, and the safety belt requirements in section 316.614, Florida Statutes, when the governing body

violation of Florida's mandatory seat belt law, section 316.614, Florida Statutes, when no other charges are

...person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. [401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that “[ijt is unlawful for any person ......

..._ . FOREPERSON NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...uld diminish his appreciation for automobile safety measures including the use of a seat belt. Our holding that Fleming was not under a duty to fasten Bonds's seat belt is consistent with the public policy expressed within Florida's Safety Belt Law, section 316.614, Florida Statutes (1988)....

...Enacted after this suit was initiated and thus technically inapplicable, the statute, nonetheless, requires front seat passengers over 16 years of age to buckle up, but the driver is not accountable nor negligent if the passenger fails to do so. See § 316.614(5), (10)....

apportionment of liability between the parties. § 316.614(10), Fla.Stat. (1993). Given the unique aspect

...Tr. 6) and “to deter any potential crime that may come from the clubs” (id. at 55). Putting the pretextual-stop plan into ac'tion, Evancoe advised Zambito that Sampson and his occupants were not wearing seatbelts in violation of Florida Statute § 316.614 (which Sampson denies (id....

instruction). As for the applicability of Section 316.-614, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), this issue

...ot, by statute, require the use of available seat belts.” It is not necessary here to address this tantalizing latter thought, now that Florida does have a mandatory seat belt restraint statute, because, the instant accident occurred back in 1981. § 316.614, Fla.Stat....

...that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. [401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person . . . [t]o operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.”F.S. 316.614, provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person ....

...NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...This theory was, in turn, founded on dual claims that the duty to do so arose both from the common law, see Insurance Co. of North America v. Pasakarnis, 451 So.2d 447 (Fla.1984); Mac hin v. Walgreen, 835 So.2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Dellapenta v. Dellapenta, 838 P.2d 1153 (Wyo.1992) and by statute, see § 316.614, Fla....

...Melnick: You ask substantially the following question: May a city enact an ordinance that makes the failure to wear a safety belt while operating a vehicle on city streets a primary offense that may be charged as a violation of the city's code? In sum: The Legislature has expressly mandated in section 316.614 (9), Florida Statutes, that enforcement of the safety belt law by local governments is only by means of a secondary action when the driver of a vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of Chapters 316 , 3...

...ered by this chapter unless expressly authorized."2 (e.s.) Thus, the Legislature clearly has prohibited any conflicting municipal enactments regarding traffic control or enforcement, except as expressly authorized by Chapter 316 , Florida Statutes.3 Section 316.614 , Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, provides: (4) It is unlawful for any person: (a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each front seat passenger of the vehicle under the age of 16 years is restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s....

...(5) It is unlawful for any person 16 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion. The enforcement of these statutory provisions is specifically addressed in section 316.614 (9), Florida Statutes, as follows: Enforcement of this section by state or local law enforcement agencies shall be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this chapter, chapter 320, or chapter 322. (e.s.) A municipal ordinance that makes the failure to wear a safety belt while operating a vehicle on city streets a primary offense chargeable as a violation of the city's code would directly conflict with section 316.614 (9), Florida Statutes, which makes such an omission chargeable only as a secondary action. Thus, the city would be precluded from enacting an ordinance that makes the failure to wear a safety belt chargeable as a primary offense.4 Accordingly, the Legislature in section 316.614 (9), Florida Statutes, has restricted the enforcement of the safety belt law by local law enforcement to a secondary offense....

integrated child seat, or a seat belt may be used." Section 316.614(3)(c), Florida Statutes, defines "[r]estrained

...that a reasonably careful person would use under like circumstances. Negligence is doing something that a reasonably careful person would not do under like circumstances or failing to do something that a reasonably careful person would do under like circumstances. [401.9] F.S. 316.614, provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person ....

...NOTE ON USE This model instruction illustrates the instruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased....

...passengers. The ability to stop a motor vehicle for failure to use a safety restraint as a primary offense depends upon the age of the students being transported. In light of the interrelated nature of your questions, they will be answered together. Section 316.6145 , Florida Statutes, provides: "Each school bus that is purchased after December 31, 2000, and used to transport students in grades pre-K through 12 must be equipped with safety belts or with any other restraint system approved by the Federal Government in a number sufficient to allow each student who is being transported to use a separate safety belt or restraint system. These safety belts must meet the standards required under s. 316.614 ....

...school code. 6 In the instant situation, if the van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, then its use to regularly transport prekindergarten through grade twelve students of public schools makes it a "school bus" subject to the requirements in section 316.6145 , Florida Statutes....

...use." 9 While a van designed to carry no more than 10 persons would not be considered a "school bus" for purposes of the school code, it would fall under the definition of a motor vehicle for purposes of the "Florida Safety Belt Law." 10 Pursuant to section 316.614 (4), Florida Statutes, it is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle "unless each passenger of the vehicle under the age of 16 years is restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s....

...For children aged through 3 years, the restraint must be a separate carrier or a vehicle manufacturer's integrated child seat. For a child 4 through 5 years of age, a separate carrier, an integrated child seat, or a seat belt may be used. A violation of section 316.614 , Florida Statutes, is a nonmoving violation, the enforcement of which "must be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this chapter, c...

...Accordingly, a van with the capacity to transport more than 10 persons that is regularly used by a school board to transport students in prekindergarten through grade 12 would be a "school bus" and, while currently not required to have safety restraints, would be subject to the safety restraint requirements in section 316.6145 , Florida Statutes, if the van is purchased after December 31, 2000....

...lly, passengers are required to use safety restraints. Whether the van may be stopped for failure to use a safety restraint as a primary offense depends upon the age of the child passenger. Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tls 1 Section 316.6145 (1)(a), Fla....

...Stat., stating that "[w]hen transportation is authorized in privately owned vehicles, students may be transported only in designated seating positions and must use the occupant crash protection system provided by the vehicle manufacturer ." (e.s.) 10 See, s. 316.614 (3), Fla. Stat. 11 Section 316.614 (8), Fla....

...s which the defendants raised. This court’s failure to address those issues is not to be construed as the "law of the case.” The trial court is free to revisit those issues upon retrial. . The accident in this case occurred on November 27, 1988. Section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes (1987), the relevant statute to this case, provided that a violation of the statute requiring the front-seat passenger to wear a seat belt could not "be used as prima facie evidence of negligence in any civil action.” In 1990 the legislature amended that subsection to provide that a violation of the statute could not “be considered in mitigation of damages but ... [could] be considered as evidence of comparative negligence” in a civil action. § 316.614(10), Fla.Stat....

...ute an abuse of discretion, and affirm as to that issue. As to the issue of whether or not the jury properly calculated present value damages, we do not reach that point because we reverse as to appellant’s first issue, and remand for a new trial. Section 316.614(4)(b), Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in Florida unless the person is restrained by a safety belt....

...2 That instruction directs the jury to determine whether or not a reasonably careful person would have used a seat belt under the circumstances, and whether or not the failure to use the seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing the damages sustained by the claimant. 3 The instruction does not mention section 316.614, Florida Statutes (Supp.l986). The plaintiff also argued that section 316.614(10) barred the giving of the requested instruction. That subsection states: § 316.614(10) A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall a violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action....

...instruction was necessary to allow the jury to properly resolve all of the issues in the case. Alderman v. Wysong and Miles Co., 486 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA1986). We find that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a violation of section 316.614 constituted evidence of negli- *915 genee....

...As to appellee Ridley’s motion for rehearing and clarification, we deny the same as it constitutes reargument of points previously presented to the court. We do, however, certify a question concerning what is the appropriate jury instruction to be given where there is evidence of a violation of section 316.614, Florida Statutes, “the Florida Safety Belt Law,” as being one of great public importance....

...He asserts that the failure to *916 wear the seat belt cannot constitute comparative negligence if the failure to wear the seat belt was not an actual cause of the initial accident. While this reasoning has some logical appeal, it is in direct conflict with the language of section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes (1991). The statute states that a violation of the statute should not be considered in mitigation of damages. Section 316.614(10), does state, however, that a violation of the seat belt law may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence....

...It is not reasonable to assume that this language was only intended to be utilized in those very rare instances where the use of the seat belt actually caused the initial accident. Nor does the legislation itself contain such a limitation. 1 One commentary makes a convincing argument that the intent of the 1990 amendment to section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes (1991), was to preclude evidence of the failure to wear seat belts from being considered as both evidence in mitigation of damages and evidence of comparative negligence....

...ed the defendant’s argument that the concept of mitigation of damages has simply been subsumed into the theory of comparative negligence, that negligence (and therefore comparative negligence) refers to both causation and damages, and that reading § 316.614(10) in the manner suggested by Plaintiffs is contrary to the intent of § 316.614 as well as inconsistent with accepted rules of statutory construction. The court found “the Defendant’s interpretation of § 316.614(10) ......

...far more consistent with the intent of the statute than Plaintiffs’ reading of that subsection.” It concluded: The law existing in this state since Pasa-kamis has been that mitigation of damages may be raised in defense of an injury claim in second collision or enhancement of injury cases. Section 316.614(10) does not undertake to change that existing law, but instead codifies the accepted legal doctrine, as stated in Parker v....

...failing to instruct the jury that violation of a traffic regulation prescribed by statute is evidence of negligence. We, therefore, deny the motion for rehearing. We are cognizant, however, of the confusion which surrounds the proper utilization of section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes, and, therefore, certify the following question to be one of great public importance: IF EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF SECTION 316.614, FLORIDA STATUTES, “THE FLORIDA SAFETY BELT LAW,” AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE VIOLATION CONTRIBUTED TO THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE PLAIN *917 TIFF, SHOULD FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION 4.11 (VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATION AS EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE) BE GIVEN? MINER, J., concurs....

...The court noted that the statute specifically states that a violation of the statute is not negligence per se. We would, however, note that this language does not preclude an argument that violation of the statute can be considered as evidence of negligence. . § 316.614(10), Fla.Stat.

...a seat belt that is not uncertain, speculative, or conjectural.... ” Smith, 565 So.2d at 755 n. 8. When the Florida Supreme Court next visited this issue, in Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 693 So.2d 934 (Fla.1996), it was considering the impact of section 316.614(10), Florida Statutes (1995), 2 Florida’s Safety Belt Law, on Pasakamis....

would do under like circumstances. [4.11] Section 316.614, Florida Statutes, provides that “[i]t is unlawful