The Automatic Shortcut to Proving Negligence

The path to recovering damages in a personal injury case typically requires proving the four core elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages. However, in certain circumstances, the law provides a powerful shortcut. This is the doctrine of Negligence per se, a concept that can automatically establish a defendant’s breach of duty, dramatically streamlining a plaintiff’s case.

Translating literally to “negligence in itself,” this doctrine is a core principle in tort law. It holds that an individual is automatically considered negligent—as a matter of law—if they violate a statute or regulation designed to protect the public, and that violation leads to injury. Instead of arguing what a “reasonable person” would have done (the standard for ordinary negligence), the focus shifts immediately to whether a specific law was broken.

How Negligence Per Se Simplifies the Case

In a standard negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable under the circumstances. Negligence per se replaces this complex inquiry with a direct comparison to established law. By proving the defendant violated a public safety law, the plaintiff is relieved of the burden of proving the defendant owed a duty of care and breached that duty. The law itself sets the standard of care, and the violation proves the breach.

The Four Critical Elements to Prove

To successfully use the doctrine of Negligence per se, the plaintiff must definitively establish four essential components:

1. Statutory Violation: The defendant must have violated a specific law, statute, ordinance, or regulation.
2. Protected Class: The plaintiff must be a member of the specific class of persons the statute was designed to protect.
3. Type of Harm: The injury suffered by the plaintiff must be the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent.
4. Causation: The violation of the statute must be the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

Common Applications and Defenses

This doctrine is widely applied in scenarios where public safety is codified by law. Common examples include:

• Traffic Accidents: Running a red light, driving under the influence (DUI), or texting while driving, all of which violate traffic codes designed to prevent collisions.
• Premises Liability: A landlord violating local building codes, such as failing to install required smoke detectors, handrails on stairs, or proper lighting, leading to injury.
• Product Safety: Businesses violating federal or state regulations governing product labeling or safety standards.

Summary: Key Takeaways

1. Definition: Negligence per se (negligence in itself) is a legal doctrine that establishes a defendant’s breach of duty by proving they violated a statute or regulation.
2. Shortcut: It eliminates the need to prove the defendant acted unreasonably, shifting the entire focus of the case to causation and damages.
3. Requirements: A successful claim requires showing the violation of a statute, that the statute was designed to prevent the specific type of harm, and that the plaintiff was in the intended protected class.
4. Causation Still Required: The statutory violation must still be proven to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
5. Defense: The defendant can rebut the presumption by offering a valid excuse for the violation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What is the main difference between ordinary negligence and Negligence per se?

A: In ordinary negligence, the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted unreasonably. In Negligence per se, the defendant’s violation of a public safety law automatically establishes the unreasonableness and the breach of duty, removing that element from the jury’s consideration.

Q: Does Negligence per se guarantee a win for the plaintiff?

A: No. While it establishes the defendant’s negligence (duty and breach), the plaintiff must still prove two things: first, that the violation was the actual and proximate cause of the injury, and second, the extent of the damages suffered. Furthermore, the defendant can still offer a valid excuse to rebut the presumption.

Q: Can administrative regulations or local ordinances be the basis for Negligence per se?

A: Yes, provided the local ordinance or regulation, such as a county building code or a city traffic law, was enacted to protect the public from the specific type of harm that occurred. The application can vary by state jurisdiction.

Q: If a defendant violates a law but causes no injury, can they be held liable for Negligence per se?

A: No. The doctrine of Negligence per se, like any tort claim, requires that the violation of the statute must have resulted in actual injury or harm and be the cause of the plaintiff’s damages. A violation without a resulting injury is not a basis for a civil suit.

***

Negligence per se, Tort law, Personal injury claim, Duty of care, Breach of duty, Statutory violation, Proximate cause, Legal doctrine, Standard of care, Negligence lawsuit, Building code violation, Traffic violation, Protected class, Rebuttable presumption