Categories: Court Info

Understanding Negligence Per Se in Personal Injury Law

META DESCRIPTION

Discover the powerful legal doctrine of Negligence Per Se, where violating a safety statute automatically establishes a breach of duty. Learn the four key elements required to prove this in a personal injury case and how it differs from ordinary negligence. This guide simplifies the concept of a statutory violation leading to liability.

The term negligence per se is a powerful concept in tort law that dramatically changes how a plaintiff must prove their case. Unlike standard negligence claims that require proving a defendant’s conduct fell below the standard of a “reasonable person,” negligence per se simplifies the process by pointing directly to a defendant’s violation of a law or regulation. This legal doctrine essentially means “negligence in itself”.

When a defendant violates a specific statute designed to protect the public, that violation can be used as automatic proof that they breached their duty of care. This article breaks down this doctrine, explaining its core elements, its relationship to ordinary negligence, and what it means for civil liability.

What is Negligence Per Se?

In a standard negligence case, a plaintiff must prove four core elements: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages. Negligence per se acts as a “shortcut” for establishing the first two elements: Duty and Breach of Duty.

💡 Legal Expert Tip

The rationale for this doctrine is that a legislative body, by enacting a safety statute (like a traffic law or a building code), has already determined the appropriate standard of care. A reasonable person simply does not violate the law. Thus, breaking the law is, by definition, a failure to exercise reasonable care.

When the doctrine of negligence per se is successfully invoked, the court accepts the defendant’s statutory violation as conclusive (or, in some jurisdictions, presumptive) evidence of both a duty and a breach of that duty. The plaintiff’s focus then shifts entirely to proving the remaining elements: causation and damages.

The Four Elements of a Negligence Per Se Claim

Although the first two elements of negligence are satisfied by the statutory violation itself, a plaintiff must still demonstrate four specific requirements to successfully use the negligence per se doctrine in court.

Essential Requirements

Statutory Violation: The defendant must have violated a specific law, regulation, or ordinance. This is typically proven with evidence such as police reports or citations.
Protected Class: The plaintiff must belong to the class of persons the statute was intended to protect. For example, traffic laws are designed to protect other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
Type of Harm: The injury suffered by the plaintiff must be the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent.
Causation: The defendant’s violation of the statute must have been the factual (“but-for”) and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

A classic case illustrating the “Type of Harm” requirement is Gorris v. Scott (1874), where a statute required livestock to be kept in pens to prevent disease. When a plaintiff’s sheep were washed overboard because they were not penned, the court ruled against negligence per se, holding that the statute’s intent was to prevent disease, not to prevent the loss of livestock in transit.

Negligence vs. Negligence Per Se: A Key Difference

The distinction between ordinary negligence and negligence per se is critical in a personal injury lawsuit, as it alters the burden of proof for the plaintiff.

Comparison of Proof Standards
Element	Ordinary Negligence	Negligence Per Se
Duty & Breach	Must be proven by showing the defendant failed the “reasonable person” standard.	Automatically established by the unexcused violation of a safety statute.
Standard of Care	Subjective; determined by the jury based on context and evidence.	Objective; defined by the clear mandates of the violated statute or regulation.
Plaintiff’s Burden	Must prove all four elements (Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages).	Only needs to prove the statutory violation, Causation, and Damages.

Case Study Example

A contractor fails to install a safety railing in a stairwell, violating a specific building code. A resident falls and is injured. Because the building code exists to prevent falls (the harm) and the resident is a member of the protected class (building occupants), the contractor is negligent per se. The plaintiff only needs to prove the fall was caused by the lack of railing and the resulting injuries (causation and damages).

Common Examples and Rebuttable Defenses

The doctrine is most frequently applied in cases involving traffic violations and building code infractions.

Traffic Accidents: Running a red light, speeding in a school zone, or driving under the influence (DUI) are common examples. The violation of the traffic law is the basis for negligence.
Premises Liability: A store owner violating fire safety codes or a landlord ignoring a mandated safety regulation for emergency call devices can face a negligence per se claim if that violation causes injury.

Defenses and Exceptions

It is important to note that in many jurisdictions, the finding of negligence per se creates only a *rebuttable presumption* of negligence, meaning the defendant can offer a legally recognized excuse for the violation. The Restatement (Third) of Torts outlines several valid exceptions:

Valid Excuses for Statutory Violation

The defendant exercised reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute.
The law or statute itself was confusing or unclear.
Compliance with the law would have resulted in a greater risk of harm to the defendant or others than the violation itself (e.g., swerving over the line to avoid hitting a child).
The defendant was incapable of complying due to a disability or other incapacity, assuming reasonable care was otherwise used.

Summary: Key Takeaways

Negligence per se is a critical legal tool that streamlines the path to proving liability by leveraging the existence of safety laws.

It means “negligence in itself,” where a defendant’s unexcused violation of a safety law automatically establishes the breach of a duty of care.
It replaces the need to prove a breach based on the subjective “reasonable person” standard with an objective, statutory standard.
To apply, the plaintiff must be a member of the protected class, suffer the type of harm the law was intended to prevent, and prove the violation was the cause of the injury.
The doctrine is often seen in traffic accidents and building code violations.
In many states, the defendant can rebut the presumption of negligence by providing a legally recognized excuse for the violation.

Card Summary: The Power of Negligence Per Se

For individuals pursuing a personal injury claim, establishing negligence per se can simplify the litigation process significantly. By focusing the court’s attention on the concrete violation of a safety law, this doctrine bypasses the often-complex argument about what constitutes reasonable conduct. If you believe your injury was caused by another party breaking a specific safety law, consulting with a Legal Expert is the necessary next step to determine if this doctrine applies to your situation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Does Negligence Per Se mean the defendant is automatically liable?

A: No. While it automatically establishes the first two elements of negligence (duty and breach), the plaintiff must still prove that the statutory violation was the actual cause (causation) of their injuries and that they suffered damages.

Q2: What kind of “law” can trigger Negligence Per Se?

A: The doctrine is typically applied to violations of statutes, municipal ordinances, and even administrative regulations, provided the law imposes a clear standard of conduct and is designed to protect a certain class of people from a specific harm.

Q3: What if the statute was not intended to prevent the specific injury I suffered?

A: In this case, the doctrine of Negligence Per Se cannot be used. For example, if a fencing law is intended to prevent children from wandering into construction sites, it cannot be used to sue a company when an adult falls over a non-compliant fence. The harm must be of the type the statute was intended to prevent.

Q4: Is Negligence Per Se the same as “strict liability”?

A: The doctrine is often described as a form of strict liability because it removes the question of the defendant’s state of mind or reasonableness, but it is not identical. True strict liability applies regardless of fault, whereas Negligence Per Se is still subject to defenses like having an excuse for the violation or the defendant arguing that the violation was not the proximate cause of the injury.

geunim