Torts Notes - Violation of Statute as Negligence

The plaintiff in a negligence case must prove four elements:  duty, breach, causation and damages

Liability simply on the grounds of violation of statute would look more like strict liability than liability based on fault.  legislatures have not provided that violation of statutatory standard of care automatically establishes negligence, and it si fair to infer that courts have some discretion to "borrow" that standard selectively.

Negligence per se with "excuse" standard is the most common formula.  It holds that unexcused violation of a relevant statute is negligence per se, but the party who violated the statute may offer evidence of an excuse or justification for violating it.  Examples of excuses are:

a.  incapacity
b.  lack of knowledge of the need to comply
c.  inability to comply
d.  emergency
e compliance poses greater risk than violation

Violation of statute as resumption of negligence holds that proof of a statuatory violation creates a presumption that the violator was negligent.  The violator is still free to rebut the presumption bys showing that the reasonable person would have acted as he did.

violation of statute as evidence of negligence means evidence of the violation is admissable at trial.  The jury may consider it along with all other evidence.

Violation of statute must be relevant to the standard of care involved in the tort.

A statute is only relevant in establishing negligence if it is meant to protect persons like the plaintiff from the type of harm which actually occurred.  This is a question of law for the judge, not an issue of fact to be decided by the jury.

Compliance with a statute does not necessarily constitute due care, in and of itself.