application to damages by defining avoidable consequences in terms of “due care after the commission of the tort.” Rutledge v. Johnson, 81 N.M. 217, 220, 465 P.2d 274 (1970). This opinion does not change the definition of “avoidable consequences,” Rutledge, or “mitigation of damages” as explained in the Directions for Use to UJI Civ. 18.11. Those phrases apply to post-accident conduct. Our holding does no more than apply the duty to exercise care for one’s own safety to pre-accident conduct which causes damages; here, the failure to use a seat belt. Such damages may not be recovered from a defendant because such damages resulted from plaintiff’s conduct. The method to be used in preventing recovery is to apportion the damages. To d on other grounds, 101 N.M. 687, 687 P.2d 1038 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In an area of the law peculiarly appropriate
recognizing tort of wrongful discharge recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action for wrongful death recognizing cause of action