In this automobile products liability action, we review the Court of Appeals reversal of the trial court’s interlocutory denial of plaintiffs motion to strike an affirmative defense pled by defendants, and a motion in limine to preclude the introduction of any evidence concerning plaintiffs failure to use an available seat belt. The issue we consider is limited to the admissibility of evidence concerning the existence of and failure to use seat belts for the purpose of (1) attempting to establish the affirmative defense of comparative negligence, and (2) defending the design of the vehicle in cases in which the "crashworthiness” doctrine is asserted as a theory of liability. We hold that the introduction of evidence concerning the existence of and failure to use seat belts is not to be treated differently than evidence concerning the existence of and failure to use safety devices generally, and, *445therefore, that such evidence may be admissible for either purpose provided a proper foundation is established. For purposes of comparative negligence, applicable in all products liability cases by legislative act,1 evidence of a plaintiffs failure to use an available seat belt may raise a factual issue to be submitted for jury consideration. In crash-worthiness cases evidence of restraint systems is relevant to whether the vehicle as a whole was defective in design.
FACTS AND PROCEDURES
On April 18, 1979, plaintiff was a passenger in the rear seat of a 1979 Mercedes 300D owned and driven by her son, third-party defendant Rayburnell Neighbors.2 While traveling southbound on 1-75 near Lima, Ohio, Mr. Neighbors lost control of the vehicle when approaching a construction zone. The vehicle sideswiped a construction truck parked in the right lane, traversed the southbound lanes, and struck a concrete dividing barrier. At some point after the initial impact, the right rear door opened, and plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle, sustaining multiple injuries.
Plaintiff commenced this action asserting negligent design and breach of implied warranty theories of liability.3 She alleged that the cause of the accident was attributable to a defectively designed *446floor mat which had wedged under the brake pedal, contributing to the driver’s loss of control of the automobile, and further that her injuries were also caused by a defectively designed door and door-locking mechanism which rendered the automobile uncrashworthy.4 Defendants include Mercedes-Benz of North America (mbna), Estate Motors Limited, a local distributor from which the automobile was purchased, and Newark Auto Products, manufacturer of the floor mat.
Defendant mbna asserted an affirmative defense of comparative negligence on the basis of the plaintiff’s failure to use the available three-point seat restraint provided for rear seat passengers.5 Plaintiff moved to strike that affirmative defense and to exclude at trial the admission of any evidence concerning that safety device, and her failure to use it. In support of her motions, plaintiff argued that, as a matter of law, her failure to wear a seat belt did not constitute negligence because plaintiff "owed no duty” to defendant to wear a seat belt, that her failure to wear a seat belt did not contribute to the cause of the accident, and that it did not violate her duty to avoid *447consequences or minimize damages. Plaintiff relied upon the authority of Selmo v Baratono, 28 Mich App 217; 184 NW2d 367 (1970), and Romankewiz v Black, 16 Mich App 119; 167 NW2d 606 (1969).
The trial court denied both motions on August 1, 1983. The court reasoned that where there is evidence of availability of seat belts and of a causal relationship between the injuries sustained and the failure to use seat belts, it would be proper to submit the issue of comparative negligence to the jury.6 Furthermore, the court ruled that mbna could introduce seat belt evidence in its defense of the crashworthiness design of the automobile as a whole. Finally, while unclear, the court seems to have ruled that plaintiff could be precluded from any recovery against mbna if her failure to use the available seat restraint could be shown to be the proximate cause of her enhanced injuries, rather than the product’s lack of fitness.7
Plaintiff appealed in the Court of Appeals which reversed in a two-to-one decision. Lowe v Estate Motors, 147 Mich App 523; 382 NW2d 811 (1985). The Court of Appeals, relying upon Romankewiz, supra, and the extension of the Romankewiz rationale in Schmitzer v Misener-Bennett Ford, *448135 Mich App 350; 354 NW2d 336 (1984), held that the failure to use a seat restraint was not, as a matter of law, a deviation from the general duty to exercise ordinary care, and concluded, therefore, that plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt was not admissible as evidence of comparative negligence. The majority did not address the admissibility of such evidence with respect to the issue of crash-worthiness design, but, nonetheless, reversed the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s motions in toto. The dissenting judge was of the opinion that the comparative negligence defense was primarily a factual matter, the resolution of which, consistent with general negligence principles, is appropriately within the province of the jury.
We granted the defendants’ applications for leave to appeal. 425 Mich 872 (1986).
i
This interlocutory appeal involves relatively limited questions concerning the permissible admissibility of seat belt evidence within the context of the substantive issues implicated in this automobile products liability action. We are required to decide the admissibility of such evidence for two entirely independent purposes: first, to attempt to establish the partial defense of comparative negligence; second, to defend the crashworthiness design of the vehicle. All relevant evidence is generally admissible, MRE 402. Our decision in this case, therefore, requires some discussion of the law of comparative negligence and products liability to the extent that it necessarily relates to the viability of the defense plaintiff sought to strike and the evidence plaintiff sought to exclude.
Thus, the resolution of the issues presented depends upon (1) whether failure to use a seat belt *449may properly be held, as a matter of law, not to constitute a deviation from the general duty to exercise reasonable care for one’s own safety, under any circumstances and in all cases; and (2) whether seat-restraint evidence is irrelevant to an automobile’s safety design. Unless those issues may be resolved in the,affirmative, the evidence in question may not properly be excluded and withheld from the jury’s consideration, consistent with the applicable common-law principles to which we are bound.
On the basis of our obligation to analyze and decide the issues presented by applying the common-law principles of negligence developed in our prior decisions in a consistent manner, we are compelled to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Contrary to the assertions in Justice Archer’s dissent, and unlike Justice Archer, we do not, however, presume to decide whether failure to use a seat belt is or is not a deviation from the general and universal duty of an automobile passenger to exercise ordinary care for his own safety. We hold, rather, that because reasonable minds might differ, that question may not be withheld from jury decision.
With regard to the second issue, which is presented entirely independent of the first, we conclude that, because an automobile’s seat belt restraint system is directly relevant to that vehicle’s safety design, such evidence may not be excluded with respect to the limited issue of the vehicle’s crashworthiness design. We delimitate, however, the permissible scope of such evidence for this latter purpose.
ii
The doctrinal origin of the judicially created *450rule disallowing evidence of a plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt in this jurisdiction may be traced to the Court of Appeals decision in Romankewiz, supra. Romankewiz was an ordinary automobile negligence case not involving modern theories of products liability which was decided before the adoption of pure comparative negligence by this Court in Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638; 275 NW2d 511 (1979). In Romankewiz, the Court rejected claims that a plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt could amount to contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery or a failure to mitigate damages.
With regard to the issue of contributory negligence, the Court held "that as a matter of law, [plaintiff] had no duty to wear a seat belt,” and that "plaintiffs failure to fasten his seat belt was not such negligence as to contribute to the cause of the accident [because] [u]nbuckled plaintiffs do not cause accidents.” Romankewiz, supra, 126 (emphasis in original). The reasons given in support of its holding in this regard were as follow. First, the Court noted that the then-recently enacted statute requiring automobiles to be equipped with seat belts did not obligate individuals to use them.8 Second, the Court mentioned "statistics demonstrating the general non-use of seat belts, indicating that only 15% of the nation’s drivers 'buckle up’ [and] that belts can [actually] exacerbate injuries.” Id., 124. Finally, the Court reasoned that the failure to buckle a seat belt could not amount to "a failure to exercise the ordinary care . . . under the circumstances . . . [because] until one has, or should have, notice of another’s negligence, he is not required to anticipate it. On the contrary, he is entitled to assume that others will use due care for *451his safety and their own.” Romankewiz, supra, 125 (emphasis in original).
The Court disposed of the issue of avoidable consequences or mitigation of damages by "a very simple bit of logic: if there is no duty to buckle a seat belt, failure to do so cannot be held a breach of duty to avoid consequences or minimize damages.” Id., 126. The Court held: "Accordingly, as a matter of law, . . . failure to use a seat belt is not appropriate as a damage-mitigating factor or under the doctrine of avoidable consequences.”9 Id., 127. In closing, the Court said "it is for the legislature ... to prescribe any required use” of seat belts. Id.
In Schmitzer, supra, the Court of Appeals considered whether a plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt could be introduced as evidence of comparative negligence as a partial bar to recovery in light of the adoption of the comparative fault doctrine in Placek, supra. The Court reasoned that whether a plaintiffs recovery could be reduced to the extent that his own negligence caused or increased the severity of his injury, as opposed to the accident itself, was unclear. In any event, the Court held, relying on Romankewiz, that no duty to wear a seat belt existed, as a matter of law, and therefore the failure to use an available seat belt could not constitute a breach of the duty to use ordinary care.10 Referring to that duty, the Court concluded:
*452[IJmposition of such a duty is an act more appropriately performed by the Legislature. The Legislature is better equipped to consider the various issues raised by a law mandating seat-belt use, e.g., the majority of the population’s disinclination to wearing seat belts, the contradictory studies regarding the efficacy of seat belts as safety devices, and the collateral problems associated with other types of safety devices. [Schmitzer, 359.]
The Court of Appeals majority in the present case found Schmitzer to be controlling. As noted in the dissenting opinion of Judge Simon, however, the courts in other jurisdictions have reached contrary conclusions when considering similar issues.11 At present, the majority view in comparative negligence jurisdictions in which the issue has been addressed requires allowing the jury to consider the seat belt nonuse defense. See Note, The seat belt defense: Must the reasonable man wear a seat belt? 50 Mo L R 968, 976, n 83, cases cited therein, and accompanying text (1985).
In Ins Co of North America v Pasakarnis, 451 So 2d 447, 451 (Fla, 1984), for example, the Florida Supreme Court rejected the reasoning adopted in Schmitzer. The court first addressed the assertion that whether failure to use a seat belt could constitute comparative negligence was more appropriate for legislative consideration. Noting that *453tort law is peculiarly nonstatutory and that the court had not hesitated in the past in overturning unsound precedent in the area of tort law, the court viewed the issue as most appropriate for judicial decision, and concluded that "[t]o abstain from acting responsibly in the present case on the basis of legislative deference would be to consciously ignore a limited area where decisions of lower courts of this state have created an illogical exception to the doctrine of comparative negligence . . . Id.
Discussing the doctrine of pure comparative fault which it had judicially adopted in Hoffman v Jones, 280 So 2d 431, 453 (Fla, 1973), the court concluded that the failure to wear an available seat belt could be a pertinent factor appropriate for consideration by a jury in deciding whether the plaintiff exercised due care for his own safety. Pasakarnis, supra, 453. In reaching that conclusion, the court flatly rejected the contention that seat belt effectiveness as a safety precaution is too "speculative,” stating that the evidence of seat belt effectiveness "in reducing deaths and injury severity is substantial and unequivocal.” Id.
Likewise, the court rejected the assertion that automobile accidents are unforeseeable and, therefore, that "reasonable care under the circumstances” could not, as a matter of law, require that they be anticipated. In this regard, the court discussed its earlier decision in Ford Motor Co v Evancho, 327 So 2d 201 (Fla, 1976), adopting the "crashworthiness” doctrine and rationale of Larsen v General Motors Corp, 391 F2d 495 (CA 8, 1968), in which it "expressly acknowledged [that] automobile collisions are foreseeable as are the so-called 'second collisions’ with the interior of the automobile.” Pasakarnis, supra, 453. The court *454quoted the following passage from Evancho, supra, 204:
"Automobiles are made for use on the roads and highways in transporting persons and cargo to and from various points. This intended use cannot be carried out without encountering in varying degrees the statistically proved hazard of injury-producing impacts of various types. . . .
". . . While automobiles are not made for the purpose of colliding with each other, a frequent and inevitable contingency of normal automobile use will result in collisions and injury-producing impacts.”
Following the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444; 363 NYS2d 916; 323 NE2d 164 (1974),12 the court held:
Nonuse of the seat belt may or may not amount to a failure to use reasonable care on the part of the plaintiff. Whether it does depends on the particular circumstances of the case. ... If there is competent evidence to prove that the failure to use an available and operational seat belt produced or contributed substantially to producing at least a portion of plaintiffs damages, then the jury should be permitted to consider this factor, along with all other facts in evidence, in deciding whether the damages for which defendant may otherwise be liable should be reduced. [Pasakarnis, supra, 454.]
Thus, the court concluded that failure to use a seat belt may not be deemed negligent or nonnegligent as a matter of law, but that it is “necessarily *455a matter to be determined in each instance by the jury” in all cases in which there is "competent evidence to show that the plaintiffs failure to use an available seat belt bore a causal relation to the plaintiffs injuries.” Id., 450.
hi
Like the Florida court in Pasakarnis, we are convinced that the reasons expressed by the Court of Appeals do not support disallowing the trier of fact from considering a failure to use a seat belt for the purpose of the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. Consistent with the underlying principles of the comparative fault doctrine adopted by this Court in Placek, supra, and made applicable in all products liability actions by legislative act,13 and with the general principles of negligence law acknowledged and relied upon by this Court in, among other cases, Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425; 254 NW2d 759 (1977), Hardy v Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc, 414 Mich 29; 323 NW2d 270 (1982), Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670; 365 NW2d 176 (1984), and McMillan v State Hwy Comm, 426 Mich 46; 393 NW2d 332 (1986), the trier of fact may not be precluded, as a matter of law, from considering a failure to use a seat belt to determine whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable care under the circumstances for his own safety.
The general standard of care for purposes of comparative negligence, while differing in perspective,14 is theoretically indistinguishable from the applicable standard for determining liability in *456common-law negligence: the standard of conduct to which one must conform for his own protection is that of "a reasonable [person] under like circumstances.”15 Because the nature of the objective "reasonable person” standard is indistinguishable, general negligence principles are equally applicable, and the law-fact distinction is identical.
The "no duty” formulation relied upon by the Court of Appeals in the present case is similar to the "no duty” analyses we rejected in Moning, supra, and more recently in McMillan, supra. That formulation was developed by combining the separate issues of duty, proximate cause, and the general and specific standards of care, and it substantially obscures the appropriate functions of the court and the jury. It is, of course, indisputable that, pursuant to the law of comparative negligence, every person has an obligation to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. As was thoroughly discussed in Moning, supra, whether the particular conduct in question in any given case would be a violation of that obligation "is not a question of duty, but of the specific standard of care: the reasonableness of the risk of harm thereby created.” Id., 433.
Discussing the "reasonableness of the risk of harm” and the appropriate functions of the court and jury in making that evaluation, the Moning Court said, quoting 2 Harper & James, Torts, § 16.5, pp 912-913:
The trier of fact decides whether reasonable precautions have been taken and thereby establishes the specific standard of care:
"The common formula for the negligence standard is the conduct of a reasonable man under like *457circumstances. In applying this standard under the instructions of the court, the jury normally is expected to determine what the general standard of conduct would require in the particular case, and so to set a particular standard of its own within the general one. This function is commonly said to be one of the determination of a question of fact, and not of law. ...” 2 Restatement [Torts, 2d], § 328C, comment on clause (b). [Moning, 449, n 27.]
Concerning the "reasonableness” evaluation, the Court further explained:
The reasonableness of the risk depends on whether its magnitude is outweighed by its utility. The Restatement provides: "Where an act is one which a reasonable man would recognize as involving a risk of harm . . ., the risk is unreasonable and the act is negligent if the risk is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law regards as the utility of the act or of the particular manner in which it is done.” 2 Restatement, supra, § 291. [Id., 450.]
The Court reasoned that the specific standard of care, "whether [the actor’s] conduct in the particular case is below the general standard of care, including . . . whether in the particular case the risk of harm created by the [actor’s] conduct is or is not reasonable” is appropriately within the province of the jury, "unless ... all reasonable persons would agree or there is an overriding . . . public policy.” Id., 438. The Court offered the following justification and rationale as underlying that general principle of negligence law:
The preference for jury resolution of the issue of negligence is . . . rooted in the belief that the *458jury’s judgment of what is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular case is more likely than the judicial judgment to represent the community’s [emphasis added] judgment of how reasonable persons would conduct themselves.
. . . Until the community judgment is made so to appear, the principle that doubtful questions regarding the application of the standard of care should be decided by reference to the community [emphasis added] judgment requires jury submission of the question so in doubt. [Id., 435-436.]
Moning involved the potential liability of a manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer of slingshots for the alleged negligent marketing of slingshots directly to children. The plaintiff in Moning was injured when a third-party minor accidentally hit him in the eye with a projectile fired from such a slingshot. The Court held that whether selling slingshots directly to minors constituted negligence (e.g., created an unreasonable risk of harm, thereby violating the duty to conform to the general standard of reasonable care) was appropriately to be decided by a jury.
In McMillan, supra, 52-53, we rejected the assertion that a utility company can breach "no duty,” as a matter of law, in failing to erect a utility pole in "anticipation of the possibility that an automobile, leaving the roadway out of control, would collide with it.” The opinion of the Court stated that the specific standard of care, as well as the issue of proximate cause, depended " 'in part on foreseeability — whether it is foreseeable that the actor’s conduct may create a risk of harm . . . and whether the result of that conduct and intervening causes were foreseeable.’ ” Id., 61-62 (quoting Moning, supra, 439). The Court expressly disagreed with the contention that automobile collisions with utility poles located entirely *459outside of the traveled portions of highways were unforeseeable. See, id., 62, and n 6. The Court likewise rejected the contention that no jury question could exist because utility poles so located do not cause accidents.
Applying the principle articulated in Moning, that "[w]hen reasonable minds may differ regarding the application of the reasonableness of the risk of harm, the question is best left for the jury,” the McMillan Court, supra, 63, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, and overruled Dawson v Postal Telegraph Cable Co, 265 Mich 139; 251 NW 352 (1933), and Cramer v Detroit Edison Co, 296 Mich 662; 296 NW 831 (1941), to the extent that those decisions had been judicially interpreted as having defined the specific standard of care, as a matter of law, to be applied in all similar cases. Reversing and remanding that case for trial, the Court concluded that reasonable minds might differ regarding whether the utility of illuminating the highway outweighed the risk of harm created by the placement of a utility pole approximately three feet from the traveled portion of the road. Likewise, the Court was not persuaded that considerations of public policy required adopting a particular view to be applied in all similar cases.16
The "no duty” formulation adopted in Romankewiz, supra, may have been a product of the all or nothing analyses surrounding the abrogated doctrine of contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery. Avoiding the potentially harsh and inequitable consequences of that complete defense *460may have been an appropriate concern directing the Court’s decision in that case. It was precisely that concern which led this Court to judicially adopt the doctrine of pure comparative fault in Placek, supra, to move toward "accomplishing] the goal of a fair system of apportionment of damages.” Id., 660.
In contrast to the abrogated defense of contributory negligence, comparative negligence never allows an otherwise liable defendant to entirely "avoid” liability and thus "escape” the duty of due care. Hardy, supra, 40. That significant difference renders the creation of aberrational exceptions inherently inconsistent with general negligence principles unwarranted.
The admissibility of evidence concerning a plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt for the purpose of attempting to establish the partial defense of comparative negligence does not concern the question of duty. The common-law duty issue is limited to whether the plaintiff was under any obligation to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. It cannot be seriously contended that automobile passengers are under no obligation whatsoever to exercise due care for their own safety because accidents are unforeseeable. The speciousness of such a contention is particularly reflected in the present case in which one of plaintiffs theories of liability is indeed premised upon the foreseeability of automobile accidents. Whether failure to use a seat belt under the circumstances of the instant case constitutes a deviation from that legal duty, rather, as discussed above, concerns the specific standard of care, which, consistent with our prior decisions, may not be withheld from the jury unless all reasonable minds could not differ, or some ascertainable public policy consideration re*461quires protecting, and therefore encouraging, that conduct under any circumstances.
IV
We are persuaded that the decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with the foregoing principles. The rationale forming the basis of that decision — that one need not anticipate the negligence of others, even if foreseeable, that a high percentage of automobile occupants do not use seat belts, that seat belt effectiveness is too speculative, and that the imposition of a duty to use them for purposes of the common-law doctrine of comparative negligence is more appropriate for legislative consideration — is flawed and inconsistent with modern and traditional principles of negligence law. That analysis, furthermore, substantially obscures the appropriate functions of the court and the jury.
While evidence of the high percentage of failures to use seat belts is relevant to the issue of reasonableness, such evidence does not support withholding the issue from the jury. The assertion that certain conduct is customary, or that a majority engage in the conduct in question, does not in and of itself make such conduct reasonable. The determinative evaluation requires contemplating the fictitious objective "reasonable person,” not the subjective vaverage person.” For customary conduct to be reasonable under the circumstances, it must be a product of what has been described "learned reason.”17 That is, as first articulated by Judge Learned Hand in United States v Carroll Towing Co, 159 F2d 169, 173 (CA 2, 1947), and consistently applied by the courts of this jurisdiction as reflected in Moning, supra, such conduct *462may be found to be unreasonable if the magnitude of the risk of harm created (probability of harm multiplied by the gravity of that harm) is greater than the burden of adequate precautions or the utility of the conduct in question.
In light of the uniform applicability of that formula, whether considering a defendant’s conduct for purposes of liability or a plaintiffs for purposes of reducing his recovery, we agree with the reasoning of the New York Court of Appeals in Spier, supra, 452, that "the burden of buckling an available seat belt may, under the facts of the particular case, be found by the jury to be less than the likelihood of injury when multiplied by its accompanying severity.”
We are not persuaded that all reasonable persons would agree that the burden of seat belt use, or the utility of seat belt nonuse, outweighs the resulting magnitude of the risk of injury. We are likewise not persuaded that any ascertainable public policy considerations could require that such an approach be adopted and applied in all cases. Accordingly, we hold that whether failure to use a seat belt constitutes comparative negligence so as to require the proportionate reduction of a plaintiffs recovery is an evaluative issue appropriately within the province of the jury.
If competent evidence is proffered to establish that the failure to use an available #and operational seat belt contributed to producing plaintiffs damages, then the issue of comparative negligence, including the accompanying issue of causation, should be submitted to the jury pursuant to the special verdict form ordinarily used in such cases.
v
Before addressing the second issue, we pause to *463acknowledge the recent enactment of the mandatory seat belt usage legislation, MCL 257.710e; MSA 9.2410(5), and to respond to the positions expressed in the dissenting opinions as they relate to that legislation. That statute, which took effect on July 1, 1985, requires drivers and front-seat passengers of motor vehicles operated in this state to wear seat belts, making the failure to use them unlawful. Section five provides, furthermore, that failure to use a seat belt in violation of the statute may be considered evidence of negligence, also providing that such negligence shall not reduce a plaintiff’s recovery by more than five percent. The statutory seat belt usage requirement and its accompanying provisions are inapplicable in the instant case because: (1) the accident occurred prior to the statute’s effective date, (2) plaintiff was a rear-seat passenger to whom the statute, by its terms, would not have applied, and (3) the accident occurred beyond the territorial boundaries of this state where it would not have been contrary to this statute for any passenger not to have used a seat belt.
The "no duty” formulation relied upon in Schmitzer, supra, to exclude evidence of failure to use a seat belt was premised upon the misplaced analysis that because seat belt use was not statutorily required, "no duty” to use seat belts within the context of common-law negligence could ever exist. We have rejected that analysis above, concluding that it erroneously combined and confused the duty question — whether the actor was under any obligation to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances — with the specific standard of care — whether the particular conduct in question was in derogation of that legal duty. The misplaced nature of this aspect of that "no duty” formulation hardly warrants further discussion; it *464is self-evident. Common-law negligence jurisprudence in this jurisdiction has, of course, developed entirely independently of any statutory directives. The "duty” element of common-law negligence has never been dependent upon the existence and violation of a statute, irrespective of whether one considers that element from the perspective of a defendant’s liability or a plaintiffs recovery.
No issue concerning the potential effect that the enactment of the safety-belt statute might arguably have in our decision in this case has been raised or addressed by the parties. Nevertheless, it has now been expressed in the dissenting opinions of Justice Levin and Justice Archer, although for somewhat different reasons, that the enactment of that statute should affect our decision in this case, persuading us to adopt as a matter of this state’s common law the decision of the Court of Appeals which we have concluded was clearly erroneous. After considering the alternatives, without the benefit of adversary appellate advocacy, we are not persuaded to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis of the enactment of that statute. Inasmuch as the seat belt legislation is inapplicable, our decision in this case is governed by the common law. See Pittman v City of Taylor, 398 Mich 41; 247 NW2d 512 (1976). The decision we review, likewise, was rendered entirely on that basis.
Justice Archer would hold that, to the extent that the Legislature has not required automobile occupants to use seat belts, evidence of the failure to use them for purposes of comparative negligence must be excluded and withheld from jury consideration because "no duty” to use the safety devices can otherwise exist. Justice Archer’s anal*465ysis is based in part on the assertion that because the Legislature provided that a violation of the statute, effective on July 1, 1985, may be considered evidence of negligence, it intended by negative implication that in all other cases a failure to use a seat belt may not be admissible as evidence of comparative negligence. We are not inclined, however, to engage in statutory interpretation by negative implication on the basis of legislative silence. That the Legislature has not required rear-seat automobile passengers traveling outside the territorial boundaries of this state prior to the effective date of the seat belt usage law to "buckle up” does not persuade us to affirm an unsupportable exception to the common law and the statutorily prescribed comparative negligence doctrine.18 We also note that, unlike Justice Levin, Justice Archer is of the opinion that the decision of the Court of Appeals, adopting the reasoning of Schmitzer, supra, was not erroneous as a matter of common law. We find the additional reasons expressed in Justice Archer’s opinion in this regard to be unconvincing. Some of those reasons are entirely misplaced inasmuch as they relate to a *466mischaracterization of our analysis,19 some are inconsistent with prior decisions of this Court,20 and others are unpersuasively misleading.21
Justice Levin, in contrast, is of the opinion that the enactment of the mandatory seat belt usage law effectively codified the decision of the Court of Appeals in Schmitzer, supra, and, therefore that this Court is precluded from deciding the issue by application of the common law. Thus, Justice Levin would affirm the clearly erroneous decision of the Court of Appeals in the instant case on the *467basis of the doctrines of legislative supremacy and judicial restraint. We disagree in somewhat general terms with the approach espoused by Justice Levin and, more specifically, with the application of that approach in this case.
With respect to the former, we rely upon the decision of this Court in Pittman, supra. In Pittman, the Court changed the common law applicable to cases arising prior to the effective date of the governmental immunity act. In the statute involved in Pittman, the Legislature had expressly codified the common-law immunity established in prior decisions of this Court. The Court analyzed its decision in that case, however, upon the correct axiom that the common law and the statutory law exist entirely independent of one another. The dissenting opinion in Pittman expressed the approach that Justice Levin now suggests should be applied in the present case. Five members of the Pittman Court, including Justice Levin, however, were of the opinion that they were obligated to decide the issue presented by applying the law that governed their decision of it: the common law. While expressed in two separate opinions, the Court’s rationale was that, to the extent that the legislation was inapplicable — that is, in cases like Pittman which arose prior to its effective date— the Court was not precluded from overruling its prior decisions.
We agree that an appropriate exercise of this Court’s discretion may require legislative deference in some cases on the basis that the Legislature has expressed the public policy of this state. See, e.g., Kovacs v Chesapeake & O R Co, 426 Mich 647; 397 NW2d 169 (1986). Without discussing the potential factors which might militate in. favor of legislative deference in such cases, we are convinced that such an approach would be less appro*468priate in the instant case than it would have been in Pittman, supra.
In Pittman, the Legislature had expressly codified the common-law rule adopted in the prior decisions of this Court. In contrast, this Court had not addressed the admissibility of evidence of a failure to use a seat belt for purposes of comparative negligence, and we disagree with Justice Levin that by denying leave to appeal in Schmitzer, supra, this Court in any way tacitly acquiesced in the Court of Appeals reasoning in that case. In any event, had the Legislature expressly codified the common-law rule adopted in Schmitzer, that there is "no duty” to use seat belts, and, therefore, that evidence of a failure to use a seat belt is inadmissible for purposes of comparative negligence, the approach expressed in the Pittman dissent as espoused by Justice Levin in this case might arguably have been more persuasive. In the seat belt statute, however, the Legislature has expressly decreed to the contrary: that failure to use a seat belt in violation of the statute "shall be admissible as evidence of negligence.” While the five-percent limitation on the reduction of recovery has not escaped our consideration, we disagree that concerning the substantive question — whether failure to use a seat belt may be evidence of comparative negligence — the Legislature has codified the Schmitzer Court’s decision.
The question of specific percentage limitations is not now before the Court. Furthermore, unlike the Legislature, the judiciary has traditionally not involved itself in the setting of arbitrary figures or percentages. Thus, when faced with the question whether, because of the five-percent limitation, we should affirm, as a matter of common law, an erroneous and unsupportable exception to the doctrine of comparative negligence, we are compelled *469to answer in the negative. We are not persuaded that adopting the decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis of legislative deference would be an appropriate resolution of this issue. The issue presented does not involve statutory construction, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is erroneous as a matter of the common law which governs this case and continues to exist independent of legislative action. While we are cognizant of the potential argument that the effect of the five-percent limitation could lead, potentially and perhaps anomalously, to the irrational result of protecting the recoveries of individuals whose failure to use seat belts was in violation of the statute, while not protecting the recoveries of those whose failure to use seat belts was not in violation of it, we are compelled to conclude that that effect is essentially a legislative concern.
Finally, while unnecessary to his suggested analysis, which would result in affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, Justice Levin addresses another issue which has not been raised or addressed by the parties: whether a decision of this Court changing a common-law rule established by the Court of Appeals should be given complete prospective application. We disagree with Justice Levin’s suggested analysis of that question, again without the benefit of adversary appellate advocacy, on the basis that it is generally contrary to civil appellate jurisprudence and policy. No citation to prior decisions of this Court is even necessary to support the former; it is axiomatic. The negative policy implications of such a rule are also self-evident; what incentive would civil litigants have to prosecute an appeal from an erroneous decision of the Court of Appeals when, even if successful, their success would be of no immediate benefit to themselves? Furthermore, we disagree *470with Justice Levin’s characterization of the rule addressed and adopted for the first time in Schmitzer, supra, as "well established.” Justice Levin’s inclusion of cases decided prior to this Court’s adoption of comparative negligence to support that proposition is misplaced. The issue we agreed to address in this case was presented precisely in the light of that significant jurisprudential development.
The decision of the Court of Appeals in the instant case, adopting the reasoning of Schmitzer, supra, was erroneous. It was inconsistent with then-existing decisions of this Court and generally recognized principles of negligence law when it was rendered. We decline the opportunity presented by Justice Levin and Justice Archer to infer on the basis of legislative silence an intent to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals in Schmitzer. Rather, we are convinced that the only appropriate resolution of this case requires applying the law that governs our decision of it: the common law.
VI
The Court of Appeals did not address that portion of the trial court’s ruling allowing the admission of seat belt evidence for the purpose of defending the crashworthiness design of the automobile as a whole. Plaintiff has asserted, as an independent theory of liability, that the design of the vehicle in question was a cause of her injuries because that design created an unreasonable risk of harm to its occupants resulting from an impact or collision. Plaintiffs theory in this regard is based upon the manufacturer’s duty of designing crashworthy vehicles as adopted in Larsen, supra, and in Rutherford v Chrysler Motors Corp, 60 Mich App 392; 231 NW2d 413 (1975).
*471Our research discloses that at least one Court of Appeals panel has addressed this question. See DeGraaf v General Motors Corp, 135 Mich App 141; 352 NW2d 719 (1984). While not disapproving of the admission of seat belt evidence for the purpose of defending the crashworthiness design of the vehicle as a whole, the DeGraaf Court vacated the jury’s verdict and remanded that case for a new trial on the basis of its conclusion that the jury instruction given was erroneous.
Mbna argues that seat belt evidence should be admissible in crashworthiness cases to defend the safety design of the vehicle, and the relation of that design to the plaintiffs injuries, entirely independent of the comparative negligence issue. We agree with one-half of that argument completely.
By its nature, the defective crashworthiness design theory of liability requires that the vehicle be considered as a whole. See Melia v Ford Motor Co, 534 F2d 795 (CA 8, 1976); Dreisonstok v Volkswagenwerk, AG, 489 F2d 1066 (CA 4, 1974); Daly v General Motors Corp, 20 Cal 3d 725; 144 Cal Rptr 380; 575 P2d 1162 (1978). As expressed by the California Supreme Court in Daly, "the issue of defective design is to be determined with respect to the product as a whole . . . .” Id., 746. Accordingly, the jury should consider the vehicle’s overall design, including safety features, in order to determine the crashworthiness issue, and, thus, whether the vehicle was defective in design. The need to weigh competing considerations in an overall product design, generally, and the relevant factors in that evaluation, were recently discussed by this Court in Prentis, supra.
Evidence of the seat-restraint system goes to the heart of the issue in crashworthiness cases in which the plaintiffs injuries were sustained after being ejected from the vehicle, a result which seat *472belts are specifically designed to prevent. Whether the plaintiff presents her case through a negligence theory — attempting to establish that the design of the vehicle created an unreasonable risk of injury — or through a breach of implied warranty theory — that the vehicle was not reasonably fit for its intended and foreseeable uses — the determinative issue of liability concerns whether the vehicle was unreasonably unsafe because of its design. Evidence of product safety features specifically designed to prevent the injuries complained of is entirely relevant to this issue. No reason, even arguably sound, exists for excluding such evidence on this liability issue. Plaintiff has provided us with none.
In crashworthiness cases, the vehicle is to be considered as an integrated whole. Accordingly, seat belt evidence is admissible for that purpose. In the event that this cause proceeds to trial, the jury should be permitted to consider evidence concerning the seat-restraint system, along with all other relevant factors, in determining whether the vehicle was defective in design pursuant to plaintiff’s crashworthiness theory.
The limited permissible scope of such evidence in light of its appropriate purpose, however, compels us to reject the second part of defendant’s argument concerning this issue. Mbna has intertwined an argument concerning the element of causation within the context of presenting seat-restraint evidence in its defense of the vehicle’s safety design, arguing that, independent of the comparative negligence issue, it may properly seek to establish that plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt was the cause in fact and sole proximate cause of her enhanced injuries rather than any design defect in the vehicle. Interposing the issue of causation within the same context as the issue *473of negligent design tends to confuse the purposes for which defendant seeks to introduce seat belt evidence, as well as the elements of plaintiffs cause of action. It was a similar theory, and jury instruction based thereon, which the Court of Appeals in DeGraaf, supra, found to be error requiring reversal.
The plaintiffs conduct and its causal relation to her injuries are not relevant to the issue of the vehicle’s design. While it is true that plaintiff must establish both that the vehicle was defective in design and that that defect proximately caused her enhanced injuries, those elements are entirely distinct. In considering whether the insufficient crashworthiness design of the vehicle was a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries, the focus is upon the vehicle’s design and its relation to the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff’s conduct and the relation of that conduct to her injuries are properly considered within the context of the comparative fault issue.
Assuming that the vehicle is determined to be uncrashworthy pursuant to plaintiffs theory, the assertion that plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt could be found to be the only cause of her enhanced injuries, without regard to whether that failure is found to have been comparatively negligent, is a curious and unusual argument when viewed purely in the context of causality. While a manufacturer may ordinarily contend that, even if defectively designed, the design of its product was not a cause of the plaintiffs injuries, the theory by which mbna seeks to do so in this regard under the facts of the instant case is improper.22
*474Therefore, we caution the trial court, in the event that this cause proceeds to trial, to delimitate the appropriate use of seat-restraint evidence for the purpose of considering the reasonableness of the design of the vehicle under plaintiffs crash-worthiness theory. While such evidence could enable the jury to properly determine whether the vehicle’s overall design made it crashworthy, and thus not negligently defective in design, no legal basis independent of fault could enable the jury to determine that, because plaintiffs failure to use the seat restraint resulted in her enhanced injuries, the design of the vehicle could not have been a legal cause of those injuries. Whether, and to what extent, plaintiffs failure to use an available seat restraint proximately caused her enhanced injuries may properly be considered within the context of the comparative fault issue, and even then only after consideration of the substantive negligence question.23
*475VII
In conclusion, we hold that evidence of a failure to use a seat belt may be admissible to support an affirmative defense of comparative negligence. If competent evidence is proffered, the issue may appropriately be submitted for jury consideration. Additionally, we hold that in crashworthiness cases, seat-restraint evidence is admissible for the purpose of defending the design of the vehicle as a whole, entirely independently of the comparative negligence defense. We emphasize, however, that for this latter purpose it is the design of the vehicle which is at issue, and not the plaintiffs conduct in failing to use the provided seat-restraint system.
Our decision in this case is to be given limited retroactive effect, applying to cases tried after the date this opinion is issued and those cases pending on appeal in which issues concerning the admissibility of seat belt evidence have been properly preserved. We express no opinion concerning the future applicability of MCL 257.710e; MSA 9.2410(5) with regard to cases in which the injury occurred after the effective date of that statute and a plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt was in violation of its provisions.24
Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs motions to exclude all evidence of the *476existence of and failure to use seat belts, with the appropriate limitations expressed in part vi.
Brickley and Cavanagh, JJ., concurred with Riley, C.J.MCL 600.2949(1); MSA 27A.2949(1). See In re Certified Question, Karl v Bryant Air Conditioning Co, 416 Mich 558; 331 NW2d 456 (1982).
Mr. Neighbors’ status as a third-party defendant is currently somewhat unclear. The record reflects that Mr. Neighbors reached a settlement with plaintiff and thereby was released. See MCL 600.2925d; MSA 27A.2925(4). The propriety of Mr. Neighbors’ release seems to have been the subject of some motion procedure appearing not to have been concluded.
For an exposition of these substantive theories of products liability regarding design defects as opposed to manufacturing defects, see Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).
The term "crashworthiness” as used in this opinion relates to the protection that a motor vehicle affords its passengers against injuries resulting from accidents, that is, injuries resulting from the so-called "second collisions” which occur after the initial impact or collision. Second-collision injuries have been described as "enhanced injuries.” See Larsen v General Motors Corp, 391 F2d 495 (CA 8, 1968). See also Note, Torts—Strict liability—Automobile manufacturer liable for defective design that enhanced injury after initial accident, 24 Vand L R 862 (1971).
For a statutory definition of the term "crashworthiness,” see the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 USC 1901(14).
Mbna affirmatively pleaded the following:
[T]he injuries suffered by Plaintiff in the alleged accident were the proximate result of Plaintiffs own negligence, including, but not limited to the failure of Plaintiff to wear the seat belt or other safety restraint provided with the subject vehicle by MBNA.
The trial court declined to apply Selmo and Romankewiz, noting that both cases were decided prior to the judicial abrogation of the defense of contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery. The court opined that, consistent with the principles of pure comparative negligence adopted in Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638; 275 NW2d 511 (1979), the focus is on the plaintiffs conduct as it relates to her injuries, rather than being limited to the causality of the accident itself. Further, the court relied upon a comparative negligence treatise by Professor Schwartz, which was cited with approval in Placek, to support its ruling that in comparative negligence jurisdictions a plaintiffs failure to use an available seat belt and the extent to which that failure contributed to the plaintiffs injuries should be submitted for jury consideration.
The basis for that portion of the trial court’s ruling is unclear. While the record reflects some reference to the defense of "misuse,” mbna seeks to support that ruling within the context of the element of causation without reference to that defense.
MCL 257.710b; MSA 9.2410(2) required automobiles manufactured after January 1, 1965, to be equipped with seat belts.
Cf. Spier v Barker, 35 NY2d 444; 363 NYS2d 916; 323 NE2d 164 (1974). In Spier, the New York Court of Appeals held that, while failure to use a seat belt could not constitute contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery, a plaintiffs failure to use an available seat belt could constitute a breach of the duty to avoid consequences or mitigate damages, and, therefore, that such evidence could not be precluded from jury consideration.
The Schmitzer Court reasoned that where there is no duty there can be no breach. The Court’s holding that the failure to use an available seat belt could not constitute a violation of the duty to use ordinary care was also premised upon the proposition that "plaintiff *452[need not] anticipate negligent acts of a defendant.” 135 Mich App 359. The Court did not attempt to reconcile that proposition with the decisions of this Court which have rejected such a proposition when considering the liability of defendants. See, e.g., McMillan v. State Hwy Comm, 426 Mich 46; 393 NW2d 332 (1986); Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425; 254 NW2d 759 (1977).
See, e.g., Anno: Nonuse of automobile seatbelts as evidence of comparative negligence, 95 ALR3d 239; Anno: Nonuse of seat belt as failure to mitigate damages, 80 ALR3d 1033. See also Werber, A multi-disciplinary approach to seat belt issues, 29 Clev St L R 217 (1980); Comment, Self-protective safety devices: An economic analysis, 40 U Chi L R 421 (1973); Note, The seat belt defense: Must the reasonable man wear a seat belt? 50 Mo L R 968 (1985).
When Spier was decided, contributory negligence as a total bar to recovery had not yet been replaced with the doctrine of comparative fault. The court premised its decision upon the doctrine of avoidable consequences, which it reasoned was similar to the doctrine of mitigation of damages. Whether failure to use an available seat belt constituted a breach of the duty to avoid consequences or mitigate damages was deemed a question for the jury.
MCL 600.2949(1); MSA 27A.2949(1).
For purposes of comparative negligence, the perspective differs in that it is the plaintiffs conduct in relation to his own injuries which is at issue.
Restatement Torts, 2d, §464. See Hardy v Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc, 414 Mich 29; 323 NW2d 270 (1982).
Judicial attempts to define the specific standard of care to be applied in all similar cases have been criticized by legal writers and have not withstood the test of time. See, e.g., Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 35, pp 217-219.
Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), § 33, p 195.
Contrary to the assertions in the dissenting opinion, we have not, in our decision in this regard, "engaged in judicial legislation,” nor have we "invite[d] legislative action to affirm [our] decision.” Our analysis, rather, is premised upon our obligation to decide this appeal by applying the law that governs our decision of it — the common law. See, e.g., Pittman, supra.
Inasmuch as the mandatory seat belt usage legislation is inapplicable in the present case, we have reached our decision entirely as a matter of the common law, as did the trial court and the Court of Appeals. We have not, of course, intended to imply that the Legislature is bound by our development of that body of the law. Finally, we would note, if it is not obvious, that the result favored by the dissent —that a failure to use a seat belt may not, as a matter of law, constitute comparative negligence under any circumstances — would not be more consistent with the seat belt usage statute than our decision. That statute, because of its inapplicability, has not affected our decision in this case which we have reached entirely on the basis of the common law.
Justice Archer’s opinion for affirmance incorrectly maintains that we would hold that failure to use a seat belt is negligent; that plaintiffs have "a duty” to use them. That, of course, is not what we have held. Our holding, rather, is that because reasonable minds might differ, the issue may not be withheld from the jury; it may not be decided one way or the other as "a matter of law.” Our position, simply stated, is that a plaintiff’s "negligence” is to be determined in the same manner as a defendant’s "negligence.”
Our analysis of the comparative negligence issue is premised upon the conclusion that the determinative inquiry does not concern the "duty” question. That question, in our view, is whether the plaintiff was under any obligation to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Justice Archer’s dissenting opinion, like the decision of the Court of Appeals, confuses the duty question with the specific standard of care, and, as a result, does not respond to our analysis.
Justice Archer’s assertion that a plaintiff’s contributory negligence should somehow be distinguished or treated differently in products liability cases is inconsistent with Karl, n 1 supra. Likewise, the statement in that opinion that a plaintiff’s contributory fault is less culpable than a defendant’s because the former "merely exposes [oneself] to a risk” whereas the latter " distribute^] risks to the world at large,” therefore implying that a plaintiff’s alleged negligence is to be determined differently than a defendant’s, is inconsistent with Hardy, supra. In determining fault, the negligence standards are identical.
The assertion in Justice Archer’s opinion that the majority view among other jurisdictions prohibits the introduction of a plaintiff’s failure to use a seat belt is misleading because the majority view referred to includes contributory negligence jurisdictions. In comparative fault jurisdictions in which the issue has been addressed, the majority view is to the contrary. For a list of those decisions see Note, 50 Mo L R 976, n 83, n 11 supra.
With regard to the crashworthiness issue, the courts in other jurisdictions have unanimously held that evidence of safety features, including seat belts, may not be precluded from jury consideration. See part vi. See, also, Werber, n 11 supra, 250-251.
Defendant’s argument in this regard is presented entirely independently of comparative negligence and without reference to the so-called misuse defense. Assuming that plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt is found not to have been negligent, mbna does not assert any *474basis upon which plaintiffs failure to use a seat belt could theoretically be determined to be a legal cause of her enhanced injuries, much less the only cause. Viewed within the context of the element of causation, without regard to any fault on plaintiffs part, defendant’s argument is entirely misplaced. We agree with the panel in DeGraaf, supra, that the presentation of that legally unsupportable "causation” theory would be erroneous.
Assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff successfully established that the vehicle in the present case was uncrashworthy because of a defectively designed door and door-locking mechanism, the causation element would require her to establish that that defective design proximately caused her enhanced injuries by resulting in her ejection from the vehicle. Defending against that element of plaintiffs cause of action, mbna could properly seek to establish that, because of the nature and point of initial impact, the same result would have occurred even in the absence of the design defect. Thus, with regard to the causation element for purposes of plaintiffs crashworthiness design theory, the focus would be upon the causal relation between the vehicle design and the plaintiffs injuries.
Whether, and to what extent, plaintiffs failure to use the seat restraint constituted negligence which contributed to her injuries may properly be considered within the context of the comparative negligence issue. Furthermore, that issue may be properly considered only after the trier of fact has decided the substantive issue of defendant’s *475liability. Prior to a determination of plaintiffs fault, the causal relation of her conduct and the claimed damages is irrelevant to defendant’s liability.
For the reasons discussed in part v, the mandatory seat belt usage law is inapplicable in the instant case. No issue concerning the present or future effect of that statute has been raised by the parties in this Court. Other than acknowledging our recognition of the potentially troublesome concern discussed in part v, we are not inclined to comment further.