The Hutchins v. Schwartz case resulted from an automobile accident after which Hutchins sued Schwartz for $275,000 in compensatory damages. Hutchins filed a motion to exclude evidence of his failure to wear a seat belt. Hutchins' motion was denied, and the Court held that evidence of nonuse constituted admissible evidence relevant to the jury's determination of an appropriate damage award. The Court stated, however, that nonuse does not constitute negligence per se unless the Alaska Legislature enacts a mandatory seat belt law. In making its determination that evidence of nonuse should be submitted to the jury, the Court considered the foreseeability of automobile accidents, seat belt availability, and public knowledge concerning seat belt effectiveness. It is concluded that the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling was not justified because the Alaska Legislature decided not to adopt a seat belt law and because most Alaskans fail to wear seat belts. It is also stated that the Court relied exclusively on public policy considerations to rule in a manner that may coerce seat belt use by penalizing nonuse in negligence cases. The Court should have found nonuse irrelevant to the issue of due care and should not have ruled to admit evidence to the jury of a plaintiff's failure to wear a seat belt. 106 references.