Torts · Negligence Per Se

Is It Possible To Negligence Per Se in Torts?

Clear answer to: Is It Possible To Negligence Per Se in Torts? with key cases, examples, and exam tips for law students.

Short Answer

Yes, negligence per se is a legal doctrine that establishes that an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation designed to protect a certain class of individuals.

Detailed Answer

Negligence per se is grounded in the idea that violating legislation meant to protect the public constitutes a breach of duty, thereby establishing negligence without needing to prove standard care. When a plaintiff can demonstrate that a defendant violated a safety statute, and that the violation caused harm to a member of the class the statute intended to protect, the court may find negligence per se.

Key considerations include whether the statute in question was intended to prevent the harm that occurred and whether the plaintiff was within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect. For example, if a driver violates a traffic law and causes an accident, the injured party may bring a negligence per se claim rather than relying on traditional standards of care.

However, courts may not always apply negligence per se rigidly. The defendant may argue affirmative defenses such as that the violation was reasonable under the circumstances or that compliance would have been more dangerous. Additionally, statutory violations must be clearly linked to the harm suffered for negligence per se to apply.

In defining negligence per se, courts often refer to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which outlines how statutory violations can serve as a breach of duty. As such, understanding these nuances is critical for effectively analyzing cases involving alleged negligence per se.

Key Cases
  • 1Martin v. Herzog (1920) - Established that violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se.
  • 2Breach v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2006) - Examined the application of negligence per se in the context of regulatory compliance.
  • 3Klein v. Raysinger (1972) - Detailed the interpretation of classes intended to be protected under statutes.
  • 4Falter v. Medford (1993) - Discussed limitations of applying negligence per se based on intent of the statute.
Practical Example

Imagine a scenario where a construction company fails to erect safety barriers as mandated by state law, resulting in a worker's injury. The worker could sue for negligence per se, arguing that the company breached a statutory duty designed to protect workers on site.

Exam Relevance

Negligence per se frequently appears on exams as a test of understanding the application of statutes in tort cases, often requiring students to assess statutory violations and their relationship to tortious conduct.

Get Answers to All Your Legal Questions

Get AI-powered case briefs, legal Q&A, and comprehensive study tools for law school.