
	Where results make sense

Topic: Negligence per se

Related Topics

Negligence

Australian tort law

List of tort topics

Res ipsa loquitur

Tort

Good faith

Ynysybwl

IGN

Marc Bolan

John Wayne Gacy

Bungie Studios

Geometric shape

Dolph Briscoe

History of Victoria

	Negligence per se - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby certain acts are considered intrinsically negligent, with no requirement to prove the negligence was known or intended.
		As a typical example, suppose a contractor violated a building code when constructing a house; the house collapses and somebody is injured.
		The violation of the building code establishes negligence per se and the contractor will have to pay civil damages to the injured party as long as the homeowner is able to show that the contractor's breach of the code was the proximate cause of the home collapsing.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Negligence_per_se (128 words)

	Law 10 Chp. 6 Torts Spring 2000
		Negligence per se by A. Donley, 2000, Jul 26
		Negligence Per Se by Stephanie Asher, 2002, Jun 20
		Negligence per se by Amy Asher, 2002, Jun 21
	hyper.vcsun.org /HyperNews/djordan/get/loaw10sp20chp6torts.html (1516 words)

	Negligence Per Se
		The negligence per se is the preferred approach to statutory violations taken today by a majority of American jurisdictions in negligence cases.
		he most difficult problem in actually applying the negligence per se approach involves the question of whether or not such statutory violations may still be excused in appropriate circumstances.
		Instead, in the overwhelming majority of statutory negligence cases (most of which involve violations of "criminal" statutes), the court retains its discretion in deciding whether or not to invoke the doctrine of negligence per se.
	www.samford.edu /schools/netlaw/Martin/torts1/nps/nps.htm (278 words)

	The MoBar Courts Bulletin (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Negligence per se instruction in premises liability case should follow form of premises liability instruction in MAI instead of vehicular negligence per se instruction in MAI.
		When a case based on negligence per se is submitted to the jury, the standard of care is omitted because the statutory violation itself constitutes breach of the standard of care.
		Although there are no negligence per se instructions in MAI for cases other than vehicular cases, when negligence per se is the basis of liability in other types of actions, the MAI instruction for that cause of action is still applicable; only the element of negligence, or breach of the standard of care, is removed.
	www.mobar.org /publications/courtsquery.php?item=317 (525 words)

	NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		NEGLIGENCE PER SE In most jurisdictions, a violation of a statute or ordinance adopted for the public’s safety may be negligence per se and establish the violators civil liability.
		Before the negligence per se doctrine can apply, the injured party must show that he or she is a member of the class, that the statute or ordinance was intended to protect.
		This decision is a benchmark upon which violations of the FMCSR are the proper subject of a negligence per se instruction, regardless of whether a State has adopted the FMCSR.
	www.uslaws.com /negligence.htm (545 words)

	Vega v. Eastern Courtyard Associates (2001) * Nevada
		We conclude that the violation of a building code provision adopted by a county ordinance is negligence per se if the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons the building code provision is intended to protect, and the injury the plaintiff suffered is of the type the provision was intended to prevent.
		Because Vega adduced sufficient evidence at trial supporting her negligence per se theory, it was reversible error for the district court to refuse to instruct the jury accordingly.
		The violation of a building code provision may serve as the basis for an action brought under a negligence per se theory if the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons that the provision was intended to protect, and the injury the plaintiff suffered is of the type the provision was intended to prevent.
	www.claimrep.com /laws/cases/Nv/caseNVVega.htm (2485 words)

	No. 99-1485
		Wisconsin courts have said that in negligence per se cases, foreseeability is not an element of negligence.
		When conduct is negligent per se, the legislature has substituted its judgment for that of the jury for purposes of determining the defendant's standard of care.
		In the ordinary negligence case, if an open and obvious danger is confronted by the plaintiff, it is merely an element to be considered by the jury in apportioning negligence and will not operate to completely bar the plaintiff's recovery.
	www.wisbar.org /res/capp/z1999/99-1485.htm (3427 words)

	Establishing Medical Standard Of Care and Breach Without Experts
		In medical negligence cases, res ipsa loquitur can be invoked only when: (1) the patient suffers an injury that is not an expected complication of medical care; (2) the injury does not normally occur unless someone has been negligent; and (3) the defendant was responsible for the patient's well-being at the time of the injury.
		For the court to accept a negligence per se claim, the plaintiff must show that a law was violated, that the law was intended to prevent the type of injury that occurred, and that the plaintiff was in the class of persons intended to be protected by the law.
		Negligence per se claims are a threat to physicians who disregard laws intended to protect patients, such as the federal provisions on patient dumping and state laws requiring physicians to provide emergency care.
	www.lectlaw.com /files/exp24.htm (1201 words)

	No. 99SC415. Randy Scott and Ann Scott v. Matlack, Inc. and Conoco, Inc. - January 14, 2002 - Colorado Supreme Court ...
		To establish a common-law negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty to conform to a standard of care, the defendant breached that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury, and there is a causal relationship between the breach and the injury.
		Therefore, we hold that this was not a de facto negligence per se case and that the jury was properly instructed on the law of negligence.
		The negligence per se claim was dropped from the case when the trial court refused to tender the Scotts' negligence per se jury instruction.
	www.cobar.org /opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=167 (6759 words)

	OSCN Found Document:BURTON v. HARN
		Where the defense of contributory negligence is well pleaded and supported by evidence reasonably tending to support such defense, the pleader is entitled to an instruction thereon defining the term and submitting the issue to the jury.
		Where each of the parties pleads city ordinances and alleges that the opposite party was guilty of negligence by violation of the same, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support such allegations, it is proper for the court to instruct the jury that such violation, if proven, constitutes negligence per se.
		That he alleges that said accident was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in that she was driving her car without due regard to other cars that might be approaching; that she was looking at and talking with the person riding beside her and did not have her car under control.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?citeID=2468 (1335 words)

	[No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Negligence per se results when a defendant breaches a statutory duty, and the harm the statute was designed to prevent occurs to one the statute was designed to protect.
		Negligence is a fact-sensitive determination requiring a judge or jury to balance considerations of what is a reasonable act under a particular circumstance.
		Negligence is tested by an objective standard which examines the defendant's behavior--not by a subjective standard which examines the defendant's mental state.
	www.csulb.edu /~hparedes/ch-06.doc (2242 words)

	Yowell, Judicial Discretion in Adopting Legislative Standards: Texas's Solution to the Problem of Negligence Per Se?
		In negligence per se, the jury simply answers whether the defendant violated the statute and whether the conduct was the cause in fact of the accident. n36 The answer to the question of reasonableness under the circumstances is foreordained by the legislature.
		Negligence per se arose historically within the confines of ordinary negligence: if a given set of facts gave rise to an action for negligence, the added fact that the defendant violated a statute meant that his conduct was negligent in itself, negligent per se.
		The question of foreseeability of harm likewise is not given to the jury in negligence per se, because the conclusion that a statute was intended to protect against the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff means that the defendant should have foreseen the harm that would result.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /torts01/syllabus/readings/yowell.html (4470 words)

	[No title]
		Negligence Per Se Elise Hamilton believes that Artistic Tattoo Parlor failed to follow proper procedures for sterilizing the needles used in giving her a tattoo.
		Vodopest sued MacGregor, asserting claims for negligence and gross negligence. Vodopest claimed that she suffered neurological damage because of MacGregor's negligence in promoting the use of her breathing technique, rather than advising Vodopest to descend to a lower altitude, as a remedy for her symptoms of high altitude sickness.
		The trial court granted summary judgment on the action for negligence but refused to dismiss the cause of action for gross negligence, holding that a preinjury release is not valid with regard to gross negligence.
	courses.washington.edu /civpro03/virtual_case/negperse.doc (5771 words)

	[No title]
		Gerstheimer) RofT(2nd) § 286 says that violation is negligence per se when the statute is intended: (a) to protect a class of persons that includes the (; (b) to protect the particular interest harmed; (c) to prevent the type of harm from occurring; and (d) to protect a harm from a particular hazard.
		Negligent Entrustment A person who supplies a potentially dangerous instrumentality to another whom the person knows or should know is likely to cause an unreasonable risk to himself or foreseeable others has a duty to the person and others.
		Negligent attorneys are not liable for the suicide of disappointed clients (iv) Damages If damage were to come to the (without the (’s negligence, the likelihood and severity of the damage can be considered by the jury when awarding damages.
	www.law.berkeley.edu /journals/clr/outlines/torts-sugarman-97.doc (6979 words)

	Taft v
		The trial court said that defendant was negligent as a matter of law because the work place he provided for Taft contained a recognized hazard in violation of federal OSHA provisions.
		NEGLIGENCE PER SE Normally, "[a] party is negligent when he [or she] commits an act when some harm to someone is foreseeable." Id. at 532, 464 N.W.2d 667.
		"The apportionment of negligence is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of a jury based upon the inferences it draws from the evidence presented, together with its determination as to the standard of care required of the parties." Id. at 535, 538 N.W.2d 630.
	tarlton.law.utexas.edu /dawson/cases/misc/taft.htm (3318 words)

	Alphecca: Comment on Weekly Check on the Bias
		Negligence per se applies when the defendant has violated certain pertinent statutes; I'm not sure (without reminding myself through research) whether negligence per se covers any other conduct, but it is not equivalent to just plain "negligence".
		Negligence per se means you have violated a statute and/or regulation that is directly related to the injury in question.
		Between negligence per se and negligent entrustment, it's hard to come up with many negligent acts that wouldn't be covered -- but if there's no statute saying, for example, "lock the doors when closing up at night", or "run criminal records checks on prospective employees", then failure to follow those precautions would not be actionable.
	www.tarazet.com /mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1731 (868 words)

	FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS SHOULDN'T SET STANDARDS IN (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the negligence per se claim for violations of CERCLA and RCRA, the district court stated that, "Connecticut law does not require the legislature expressly to create a private cause of action in order for statutory duties to become superimposed on general duties of care." Id. at 408.
		In theory, at least, application of the negligence per se doctrine represents a judicial policy judgment independent of legislative intent with respect to the imposition of civil liability.
		Thus, those courts that reject negligence per se claims predicated on the violation of environmental statutes have dismissed such claims and not permitted evidence of their breach to be presented.
	www.abanet.org /environ/committees/toxictorts/newsletter/dec02/gasch.html (3281 words)

	[No title]
		The doctrine of negligence per se represents the adoption of "the requirements of a legislative enactment as the standard of conduct of a reasonable [person]." Butler v.
		Accordingly, the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of negligence per se.
		Contrary to the Defendants' argument, the failure to instruct on negligence per se was not harmless error.
	www.courts.state.va.us /opinions/opnscvtx/1031773.txt (1597 words)

	Cable v. Shefchik (8/13/99) sp-5157
		In determining whether a negligence per se instruction is appropriate, the superior court should conduct a two-step inquiry: First, [the superior court] must decide whether the conduct at issue lies within the ambit of the statute or regulation in question, by applying the four criteria set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts sec.
		For example, had the jury's finding of negligence been premised on the failure to use the guard, it is unclear how it could have concluded that this negligence was not a legal cause of the injury, since the evidence seems undisputed that the guard would have prevented the injury.
		The negligence per se instruction at the new trial Shefchik argued extensively at trial that it was not possible or practical to conduct clean-out operations of the pump with the guard on.
	www.touchngo.com /sp/html/sp-5157.htm (3034 words)

	[No title]
		The trial court must conclude before using a negligence per se instruction, that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction, reasonable persons could conclude the statute was violated.
		The court is free to refuse to give the negligence per se instruction when it reasonably concludes that the legislation directed to the safety of persons or property is obsolete, unreasonable, or for some other reason inapplicable to the case.
		It is not clear, when the obstruction issue is raised, whether the plaintiff must prove the absence of the obstruction in order to prove the violation resulting in a finding of negligence per se, or whether the defendant must show the obstruction as part of the defendant's justification for violating the general rule.
	www.state.ak.us /courts/insciv/03.04A.doc (1056 words)

	Legal Briefs, February 1996 -- Drennan v Community Health Investment Corporation (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		Alleging negligence in the administration of anesthesia, Amy's mother filed suit on Amy's behalf (Amy was a minor) against the surgeon, the CRNA, the hospital, and the pharmacy.
		All that was shown was that the supervisor of the nurse anesthetist did not meet the requirement of the statute because the supervisor was not "a duly licensed physician with training and/or experience in anesthesia." It is difficult to argue with the outcome of the Worthy case.
		The CRNA was negligent or negligent per se in administering the anesthesia.
	www.aana.com /legal/legbrfs/1996/02lb96.asp (2897 words)

	Negligence per se to fail to inform patient of information required in research consent regulations - Daum v. SpineCare ...
		Disclosure of the Wiltse II's investigational status was required by statute and regulation, as we discuss at length in connection with the negligence per se instruction requested by the Daums.
		Negligence Per Se The Daums requested instructions covering a number of California statutes and federal regulations bearing on clinical trials of investigational devices.
		The Daums' counsel responded correctly that under the negligence per se doctrine, causation was an issue for the jury to determine.
	biotech.law.lsu.edu /cases/consent/Daum.htm (11247 words)

	BBP Case Summary: Trainor v. Hansen (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		A cause of action in negligence per se is created when a penal statute is designed to protect a class of persons, of which the plaintiff is a member, against a particular type of harm.
		Although a corresponding civil liability was not previously recognized at common law, a cause of action in negligence per se is created when a penal statute is designed to protect a class of persons, of which the plaintiff is a member, against a particular type of harm.
		Because Megan's Estate alleged in Count II a legally sufficient claim of negligence per se, the Second DCA reversed the trial court's dismissal of that count and remanded for further proceedings.
	www.bbplaw.com /decisions/991104.htm (435 words)

	104 Wn.2d 696, MINA v. BOISE CASCADE CORP.
		Conduct violating a statute constitutes negligence per se only if the purpose underlying the statute is also violated and if public policy is promoted by substituting the statutory standard of conduct for the common law standard of reasonableness.
		Supreme Court: Holding that the plaintiff's statutory violation did not constitute negligence per se and that the new trial should be limited to the issue of liability, the court AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals.
		Mina violated the statute and was negligent per se.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/supreme/104wn2d/104wn2d0696.htm (4350 words)

	55 Wn. App. 622, ANDREWS v. BURKE
		Private standards and their violation may be relevant to the issue of the negligence of a party but they do not have the force of authority associated with statutes or regulations promulgated by a governmental body and a violation of such standards does not give rise to negligence per se.
		NEGLIGENCE PER SE Former RCW 70.41.030 requires the Department of Social and Health Services to adopt such minimum standards and regulations pertaining to the operation of hospitals "required for the safe and adequate care and treatment of patients." Administrative regulations so adopted pursuant to statutory authorization are set forth in the Washington Administrative Code.
		The court did not refer to the breach of the hospital rule in terms of negligence per se, but used it only to support a conclusion the court had reached on the facts of the case.
	www.mrsc.org /mc/courts/appellate/055wnapp/055wnapp0622.htm (2626 words)

	Richmond & Quinn: Litigation Overview Part 5
		Under the negligence per se doctrine, a court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable person the requirements of a regulation or statute whose purpose is to protect the class of persons to which the plaintiff belongs.
		In determining whether to give a negligence per se instruction, the trial court must first determine whether the conduct at issue lies within the ambit of the statute or regulation in question, by applying the four criteria set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 (1965).
		Second, the negligent act must have been so important in bringing about the injury that a reasonable person would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it.
	www.richmondquinn.com /overview5.html (1114 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)