language controls.”). 10 . Neither party in this case, nor the Superior Court, was able to locate any legislative history regarding the General Assembly's intent in enacting 16 Del. C. § 6636. 11 . 21 Del. C. § 4802(i) (2004) (“Failure to wear or use an occupant protection system shall not be considered as evidence....”). 12 . 21 Del. C. § 4803(d) (2004) ("A violation of this section shall not be considered as evidence ... nor shall failure to wear a child passenger restraint system...."). 13 . 21 Del. C. § 4198K(e) (2004) ("Failure to wear a bicycle helmet as herein described shall not be considered evidence.... ”). 14 . Appellee's Am. Answering Brief at 6. 15 . See Norfleet v. Mid-Atlantic Realty Co., Civ. A. No. 95C-11-008, 2001 WL 695547, at *2 (Del.Super.Ct. Apr. 20, 2001) (<HOLDING>). 16 . The plaintiffs cite two cases to support
holding that a plaintiffs failure to invoke  1983 is fatal to the claim because the constitutional provision that was allegedly violated does not itself create a means for recovery for a violation of that provision holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them holding that a plaintiff could not base a claim on a violation of 16 del c  6634 because of the exclusionary provision in section 6636 which is clear from the text of the statute holding that section 16  3 did not apply to the defendants conduct of diverting the labor of city employees to their own purposes because section 16  3 is intended to protect businesses from the unscrupulous practices of prospective customers