Negligence Law, 50 Wash.L. Rev. 1 (1974-75); Note, Buckling Up For Safety: Should Florida Reconsider the Seat Belt Defense?, 13 Stetson L.Rev. 160 (1983); Note, The Seat Belt Defense: A Comprehensive Guide for the Trial Lawyer and Suggested Approach for the Courts, 56 Notre Dame Law. 272 (1980-81); Note, The Seat Belt Defense: Should Coloradoans Buckle Up for Safety?, 50 U.Colo.L.Rev. 375 (1978-79); See also An-not., 80 A.L,R.3d 1033 (1977); Annot., 92 A.L.R.3d 9 (1979); and Annot., 95 A.L.R.3d 239 (1979). With many states abandoning contributory negligence in favor of comparative negligence, the first objection has been viewed by at least one court to present no obstacle to adoption of the seat belt defense. See, e.g., Bentzler v. Braun, 34 Wis.2d 362, 149 N.W.2d 626 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 95 A.L.R.2d 239, supra, at 242. Further, more
holding that actual apportionment of damages is a question of fact holding evidence of nonuse of seat belts irrelevant to the liability issues involving the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence recognizing nonuse of seat belt may constitute such negligence as will permit apportionment of damages under comparative negligence holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort