Negligence Per Se in Personal Injury Lawsuits under Personal Injury
⚖️ Negligence Per Se in Personal Injury Lawsuits
📌 Definition
Negligence per se is a legal doctrine where a person is automatically considered negligent if they violate a law or regulation that is intended to protect the public and someone is injured as a result.
In contrast to ordinary negligence, where the plaintiff must prove the breach of a duty of care, negligence per se simplifies this by substituting the violation of a statute for the duty and breach elements.
✅ Elements of Negligence Per Se
To succeed in a negligence per se claim, a plaintiff must prove:
The defendant violated a statute or regulation;
The statute was designed to protect against the type of harm that occurred;
The plaintiff is a member of the class the statute was intended to protect;
The violation caused the plaintiff’s injury.
🔍 Comparison: Ordinary Negligence vs. Negligence Per Se
| Ordinary Negligence | Negligence Per Se |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, damages | Breach is assumed due to violation of law |
| Duty based on reasonable person standard | Duty defined by statute or regulation |
| Requires factual inquiry into standard of care | Less discretion for judge/jury |
🧑⚖️ Case Law Examples
🧷 1. Martin v. Herzog, 126 N.E. 814 (N.Y. 1920)
Facts: Plaintiff’s husband was killed in a car crash. The defendant was driving without headlights, in violation of a law.
Ruling: The court held that driving without lights was negligence per se, and the violation of the law constituted a breach of duty.
🔹 Significance: This is a foundational case establishing that statutory violations can automatically amount to negligence.
🧷 2. Tedla v. Ellman, 19 N.E.2d 987 (N.Y. 1939)
Facts: Plaintiffs were walking on the wrong side of the road (against statute) and were struck by a car.
Ruling: The court did not apply negligence per se, finding that strict adherence to the statute in this case would have been more dangerous.
🔹 Significance: Shows that exceptions exist—courts may not apply negligence per se when statutory compliance would increase the risk.
🧷 3. Brown v. Shyne, 151 N.E. 197 (N.Y. 1926)
Facts: Defendant practiced chiropractic medicine without a license and injured the plaintiff.
Ruling: The court held that violation of a licensing statute does not automatically make the treatment negligent, unless the injury is related to the lack of skill the license was meant to ensure.
🔹 Significance: Violation of statutes must be causally related to the harm intended to be prevented.
🛑 Common Examples of Negligence Per Se in Personal Injury Cases
| Statutory Violation | Type of Injury | Example Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Running a red light (traffic law) | Car accident injuries | Driver hits another vehicle in intersection |
| Building code violations | Slip and fall, structural collapse | Staircase without handrail causes fall |
| Serving alcohol to minors | Drunk driving injuries | Bar overserves minor who causes a crash |
| Dog leash laws | Dog bite injuries | Owner lets dog roam off-leash in public |
| OSHA violations by employers | Workplace injuries | Failure to provide fall protection on scaffolds |
⚠️ Limitations and Defenses
➤ Excused Violations
Courts may excuse statutory violations if:
Compliance was impossible under the circumstances
Following the law would create greater harm (as in Tedla v. Ellman)
The violation was due to incapacity, like sudden illness or emergency
➤ Causation Still Required
Even if negligence per se is established, the plaintiff must still prove:
The violation caused their injury
The injury is the type the statute was meant to prevent
⚖️ Effect in Court
Negligence per se often shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, who must show their conduct was excusable or did not cause the injury.
May lead to summary judgment if uncontested and all elements are met.
🔚 Conclusion
Negligence per se is a powerful tool in personal injury law that simplifies the plaintiff’s burden when a defendant violates a safety law. However, it's not absolute—courts assess:
Whether the statute applies,
Whether the violation caused the injury,
And whether there are valid excuses for noncompliance.
🧾 Summary Table
| Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Violation of Law | Defendant broke a safety law or regulation |
| Protected Class | Plaintiff must be among the class the law aims to protect |
| Protected Harm | The injury must be the type the statute seeks to prevent |
| Causation | The violation must be the proximate cause of the injury |
| No Excuse | No valid legal excuse for the violation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments