Negligence Per Se: When a Rule Violation Becomes Negligence

Introduction: Simplifying the Path to Proving Negligence

In a personal injury case, proving negligence is often the cornerstone of the plaintiff’s argument. It requires establishing that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, causing harm. However, what if a legal shortcut existed? That’s where the doctrine of negligence per se comes into play. From a legal standpoint, this principle can significantly simplify a plaintiff’s case by automatically establishing a breach of duty if the defendant violated a law or regulation that was put in place to protect the public from a specific harm.

This post will delve into what negligence per se is, how it differs from ordinary negligence, the elements required to prove it, and some of the common defenses that a defendant might use. Understanding this concept is crucial for anyone involved in a tort claim, whether as a plaintiff or a defendant, as it can be a powerful tool in personal injury litigation.

Understanding Negligence Per Se

The Latin term “per se” translates to “by itself” or “in and of itself”. In legal terms, negligence per se means that an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute, ordinance, or administrative regulation. Unlike ordinary negligence, which requires a plaintiff to prove a breach of the “reasonable person” standard of care, negligence per se presumes negligence automatically upon a statutory violation.

Negligence Per Se vs. Ordinary Negligence

While both legal theories are used in personal injury cases, their application is quite different. Ordinary negligence is based on the idea that an individual failed to act with the care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. This requires a court or jury to evaluate the defendant’s actions and determine if they were careless.

In contrast, negligence per se bypasses this step entirely. By violating a safety statute, the defendant has already established a clear breach of a legal standard. The law itself sets the standard of care, and the violation is the proof of the breach. This makes the assessment more straightforward and rigid.

Feature	Negligence Per Se	Ordinary Negligence
Standard of Care	Defined by a specific statute or regulation.	Based on the “reasonable person” standard.
Proof of Breach	Established automatically by violating the statute.	Requires proving the defendant’s conduct was careless.
Flexibility	Rigid; violation of law is clear-cut.	Flexible; varies based on circumstances.

Key Elements of a Negligence Per Se Claim

To succeed with a negligence per se claim, a plaintiff must still prove several key elements. While this doctrine helps establish the first two elements of a traditional negligence case (duty and breach), the plaintiff must still prove causation and damages. A plaintiff must establish the following:

1. There is a statute that defines a standard of conduct: The defendant must have violated a law, ordinance, or regulation that imposes a clear standard of behavior.
2. The defendant violated that statute: The plaintiff must show that the defendant’s actions constituted a clear and established violation of the law.
3. The plaintiff is a member of the class that the statute was designed to protect: The law must have been created to protect a specific group of people, and the plaintiff must belong to that group. For example, a traffic law is intended to protect pedestrians, passengers, and other drivers.
4. The plaintiff suffered the sort of injury that the statute was designed to prevent: There must be a direct link between the defendant’s violation and the harm suffered. The harm must be of the kind the statute was meant to guard against. For instance, a building code requiring handrails is intended to prevent falls, not other types of accidents.

Defenses and Limitations

Even with a strong case for negligence per se, a defendant can raise several defenses. These defenses don’t dispute the statutory violation but rather offer an excuse or justification for it, which could rebut the presumption of negligence. Some common defenses include:

• Compliance was impossible: The defendant may argue that it was impossible to comply with the statute. For example, if a state law requires pedestrians to use a sidewalk, but the sidewalk is covered in ice and unsafe, walking in the street would not be considered negligence per se.
• Less dangerous to violate the statute: A defendant could argue that a violation was necessary to avoid a greater harm. For example, swerving across a double-yellow line to avoid hitting a child who ran into the road.
• Unforeseeable circumstances: The defendant may argue that they could not have reasonably anticipated the harm that resulted from their actions.
• Emergency: The defendant may have violated the law while reacting to an emergency and had no other choice.

---

Summary

Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that simplifies the process of proving negligence in a personal injury claim. By establishing a violation of a safety statute, it automatically satisfies the duty and breach elements of a negligence case, but the plaintiff must still prove causation and damages. Here are the key takeaways:

1. Definition: Negligence per se is the concept that a defendant is automatically negligent because they violated a statute or regulation intended to protect the public.
2. Simplification of Proof: It bypasses the need to prove a breach of the “reasonable person” standard of care, making the legal process more straightforward for plaintiffs.
3. Four Elements: A plaintiff must prove a statutory violation, that they are a member of the protected class, and that they suffered the type of harm the law was designed to prevent.
4. Causation is Key: Despite the automatic presumption of negligence, the plaintiff must still prove that the statutory violation directly caused their injuries.
5. Defenses Exist: Defendants can still contest the claim by arguing that compliance was impossible or that they were acting to avoid a greater danger.

Frequently Asked Questions

This blog post was generated by an AI legal content creation tool. It is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific legal situation, you should consult with a qualified legal expert.