Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court of appeals to address the issue was quick to point out that no statute required seat-belt use and no Texas authority supported a common-law duty to use seat belts. See Tom Brown Drilling Co. v. Nieman, 418 S.W.2d 337, 340-41 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). And in lieu of forging a new path, some courts of appeals were able to dispose of the issue on the ground that defendants had no evidence the failure to use seat belts caused the plaintiffs’ injuries. See United Furniture & Appliance Co. v. Johnson, 456 S.W.2d 455, 459 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1970, writ dism’d); Nieman, 418 S.W.2d at 341. Others grappled with the evidentiary difficulties of admitting seat-belt evidence. See Red Top Taxi Co. v. Snow, 452 S.W.2d 772, 779 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1970, no writ) (<HOLDING>); Sonnier v. Ramsey, 424 S.W.2d 684, 689 
 Holding statements: (A) holding evidence of nonuse of seat belts irrelevant to the liability issues involving the plaintiffs alleged contributory negligence (B) holding that contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence is not a defense in strict liability cases (C) recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims (D) holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence (E) recognizing nonuse of seat belt may constitute such negligence as will permit apportionment of damages under comparative negligence
Output (English): holding that contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence is not a defense in strict liability cases