🤕Torts
Negligence per se simplifies proving negligence by using statutory violations as automatic proof of breach. This approach differs from ordinary negligence, which requires case-by-case evaluation of conduct against a reasonable person standard.
To establish negligence per se, plaintiffs must show the defendant violated a safety statute designed to prevent their type of harm. Defenses include excused violations, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances.
Negligence Per Se
Negligence per se vs ordinary negligence
- Negligence per se automatically establishes breach of duty when defendant violates statute or regulation designed to prevent specific harm
- Violation serves as conclusive proof of negligence without need to prove conduct fell below standard of care (running a red light)
- Ordinary negligence requires plaintiff to prove defendant's conduct fell below standard of care of reasonable person under specific circumstances
- Breach of duty determined case-by-case based on facts and circumstances (texting while driving)
Elements of negligence per se
- Plaintiff must prove the following elements:
- Defendant violated statute, ordinance, or regulation (speed limit law)
- Statute, ordinance, or regulation designed to protect against type of harm plaintiff suffered (car accidents)
- Plaintiff is member of class statute, ordinance, or regulation intended to protect (motorists and pedestrians)
- Violation was proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries (speeding caused collision)
Statutory basis for negligence per se
- Not all statutory violations support negligence per se claims
- Statute must be analyzed to determine if it can form basis for claim:
- Purpose of statute and whether designed to protect public safety or prevent specific harm (building codes)
- Statute clearly defines prohibited conduct and class of persons it aims to protect (child labor laws)
- Specificity of statutory language and whether it provides clear standard of conduct (food safety regulations)
- Statutes that are general, vague, or do not define specific standard of care may not support negligence per se (duty to act with reasonable care)
Defenses in negligence per se cases
- Excused violations: Defendant may argue statutory violation was excused due to necessity or emergency
- Must prove compliance with statute was impossible or would have resulted in greater harm (swerving to avoid pedestrian)
- Contributory negligence: In some jurisdictions, plaintiff's own negligence may bar or reduce recovery
- Applicability depends on jurisdiction's comparative or contributory negligence rules (plaintiff was also speeding)
- Assumption of risk: If plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly exposed themselves to risk associated with defendant's statutory violation
- Effectiveness depends on jurisdiction and nature of statute violated (plaintiff chose to ride with drunk driver)
Key Terms to Review (19)
Assumption of Risk: Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine that asserts a person can be held responsible for the injuries they incur while voluntarily engaging in an activity that involves known risks. This concept is significant because it relates to how individuals may agree to take on certain dangers, potentially limiting the liability of others involved in those activities.
Breach of Duty: Breach of duty occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in potential harm to others. This concept is crucial in understanding negligence, as it establishes whether a party has acted unreasonably or failed to uphold their responsibilities, which can lead to liability in various scenarios.
Building codes: Building codes are sets of regulations that govern the design, construction, alteration, and maintenance of buildings to ensure safety, health, and welfare for the public. They establish minimum standards for structural integrity, fire safety, accessibility, and environmental impact, thereby playing a crucial role in reducing risks associated with building-related hazards.
Causation: Causation refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is responsible for the occurrence of the second. In tort law, establishing causation is crucial as it links a defendant's conduct to the harm suffered by a plaintiff, determining whether liability exists based on the actions taken or omitted.
Comparative Negligence: Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to assess the degree of fault or responsibility of each party involved in a tort claim, allowing for the apportionment of damages based on their respective levels of negligence. This concept helps determine how much compensation a plaintiff can recover if they are found partially at fault for their own injuries, thereby promoting fairness in liability assessments.
Compensatory Damages: Compensatory damages are monetary awards granted to a plaintiff in a legal case to compensate for losses or injuries suffered due to the actions of the defendant. These damages aim to restore the injured party to the position they were in before the harm occurred, addressing both economic and non-economic losses.
Damages: Damages refer to the monetary compensation awarded to a plaintiff for losses or injuries caused by a defendant's wrongful conduct. This concept is central to tort law, as it serves to restore the injured party to their pre-injury condition, reflecting the importance of remedying harm through financial means.
Duty: Duty refers to the legal obligation of an individual to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others. It establishes the foundation for negligence claims, as individuals are expected to act in a way that does not put others at unnecessary risk. Understanding duty is crucial in assessing whether a defendant's actions fall short of this expected standard.
Gordon v. Boston Medical Center: Gordon v. Boston Medical Center is a legal case that addresses the concept of negligence per se, where a defendant is held liable for violating a statute designed to protect a particular class of individuals. In this case, the court examined whether the hospital's failure to comply with certain regulations constituted negligence, ultimately connecting statutory violations directly to injuries sustained by the plaintiff.
Liability presumption: Liability presumption is a legal principle that assumes a defendant is liable for harm caused, unless they can provide evidence to rebut this assumption. This concept simplifies the burden of proof in negligence cases, particularly where a defendant has violated a statute or regulation intended to protect a specific class of individuals. Essentially, it allows plaintiffs to establish liability more easily by relying on the breach of duty evidenced by the defendant's failure to comply with the law.
Martin v. Herzog: Martin v. Herzog is a pivotal case in tort law that deals with the concept of negligence per se, where a defendant's violation of a statute constitutes negligence in itself. In this case, the court addressed the issues surrounding a car accident involving an unlit vehicle and examined whether the violation of a statutory duty directly caused the plaintiff's injuries, leading to important implications for how laws are interpreted in negligence claims.
Negligence per se doctrine: The negligence per se doctrine is a legal principle that establishes that an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation. This doctrine simplifies the process of proving negligence by allowing plaintiffs to show that a defendant's action directly violated a law designed to protect public safety, thus establishing a presumption of negligence without needing to prove that the defendant acted with a standard level of care.
Proximate Cause: Proximate cause, also known as legal cause, refers to the primary cause that is legally sufficient to hold a party liable for damages resulting from their actions. It connects the defendant's conduct with the harm suffered by the plaintiff and establishes whether the harm was a foreseeable result of that conduct.
Punitive Damages: Punitive damages are financial awards given to a plaintiff in a civil case that go beyond compensatory damages, aiming to punish the defendant for particularly harmful behavior and deter similar conduct in the future. These damages are typically awarded in cases involving egregious wrongdoing, such as fraud, malice, or gross negligence, making them distinct from standard compensatory damages that simply aim to reimburse the victim for losses.
Reasonable person standard: The reasonable person standard is a legal standard used to determine if an individual's actions can be considered negligent by comparing them to what a typical, rational person would do in similar circumstances. This standard helps assess duty of care and is fundamental in various areas of tort law.
Rebuttable Presumption: A rebuttable presumption is a legal assumption that is taken to be true until someone proves otherwise. It shifts the burden of proof onto the opposing party, who must present evidence to refute the presumption. This concept plays a critical role in various areas of law, including negligence per se, where certain facts can establish a breach of duty unless disproven.
Statutory Violation: A statutory violation occurs when an individual or entity fails to comply with a specific law or statute established by legislative authority. This violation can be significant in legal cases as it often serves as a basis for establishing negligence per se, where the breach of the law automatically constitutes negligence, simplifying the plaintiff's burden of proof in tort actions.
Strict Liability: Strict liability is a legal doctrine holding individuals or entities responsible for their actions or products, regardless of fault or intent. This principle is especially relevant in cases involving defective products, abnormally dangerous activities, and certain animal-related injuries, emphasizing the need for accountability without proving negligence.
Traffic regulations: Traffic regulations are laws and guidelines designed to promote safe and efficient movement on roadways. These rules govern how vehicles and pedestrians interact, including speed limits, right-of-way rules, and signage, and are essential for preventing accidents and ensuring public safety.
Assumption of Risk
See definitionAssumption of risk is a legal doctrine that asserts a person can be held responsible for the injuries they incur while voluntarily engaging in an activity that involves known risks. This concept is significant because it relates to how individuals may agree to take on certain dangers, potentially limiting the liability of others involved in those activities.
Term 1 of 19
Assumption of Risk
See definitionAssumption of risk is a legal doctrine that asserts a person can be held responsible for the injuries they incur while voluntarily engaging in an activity that involves known risks. This concept is significant because it relates to how individuals may agree to take on certain dangers, potentially limiting the liability of others involved in those activities.
Term 1 of 19
