How Does Negligence Per Se in Torts?

Negligence per se occurs when a defendant violates a statute or regulation designed to protect a specific class of people, resulting in harm to a member of that class. This violation is automatically considered negligent without needing to establish a traditional standard of care.

Negligence per se is a doctrine in tort law that allows plaintiffs to establish a breach of duty by demonstrating that the defendant violated a statute or regulation that was enacted to promote public safety. When a law is specifically designed to prevent a certain type of harm, courts often apply the negligence per se standard, meaning the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant acted unreasonably or failed to meet a specific standard of care. Instead, the violation of the statute itself creates a presumption of negligence, provided the injured party belongs to the class of persons the statute aims to protect and the harm caused is of the type the statute intended to prevent.

To successfully claim negligence per se, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant violated a statute or regulation; (2) the statute was intended to protect a particular class of people; (3) the plaintiff falls within this class; and (4) the harm suffered was the kind the statute was designed to prevent. If these elements are met, the court may instruct the jury that they are to find the defendant negligent as a matter of law, which simplifies the plaintiff's case.

An essential aspect of this doctrine is that it allows for a more straightforward approach to negligence claims where regulatory compliance may be paramount. For example, if a driver runs a red light (a violation of traffic laws) and hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian, assuming they fall within the class of individuals the traffic law protects, could claim negligence per se against the driver. This minimizes the complexities associated with establishing traditional negligence theory, where many factual determinations could arise concerning the reasonableness of the driver’s actions.

Courts may, however, still consider certain defenses against negligence per se, such as whether the defendant was unable to comply with the statute due to legitimate circumstances (e.g., an emergency situation) or whether the statute was deemed unconstitutional. Such defenses provide a layer of complexity, thus showing that while negligence per se simplifies some aspects of tort claims, it does not entirely eliminate all defenses by a defendant. This nuanced understanding is crucial for law students while preparing for exams and analyzing real-world tort scenarios.

• 1Martin v. Herzog (1920) - Established the framework for negligence per se, highlighting the violation of the statute as evidence of negligence.
• 2Lemmermann v. Bandinelli (1972) - Expanded the concept by allowing negligence per se to apply outside of criminal statutes in specific regulatory contexts.
• 3Gordon v. Washington (1990) - Further clarified the requirements for establishing negligence per se, emphasizing the protective intent of the statute.
• 4Parker v. New Jersey (1997) - Discussed defenses against negligence per se, particularly when the statute's applicability is questioned.

• what-are-the-elements-of-tort-negligence
• how-does-reasonable-person-standard-apply
• what-defenses-are-available-in-negligence-cases