You are probably familiar with the concept of "negligence," especially when it relates to personal injury cases. When a person's negligence causes someone else's injuries, the law holds them culpable for the victim's damages and losses. It can be challenging to establish negligence because it involves proving several different elements. There is nevertheless another legal concept that can help you win your personal injury lawsuit.

"Negligence per se" is a crucial legal concept that can lessen the burden of proof while making it easier to obtain the financial compensation that you are entitled to when the party responsible for your losses caused it simply because they went against the law. This blog discusses how California's negligence per se principles function and how it could be important in the outcome of your personal injury claim.

An Overview of Negligence Per Se

Negligence per se in California is a legal principle that holds that whenever an individual violates any particular clause of the law, their conduct can be considered negligent.

This presumption of negligence can be disproved if the liable party "did what could have been expected of an individual of reasonable prudence, who was acting under a similar situation, and who sought to abide by the law."

But proving that certain behavior is negligence per se helps bring a personal injury claim because the jury won't have to decide what would be a reasonable level of care for an individual in that specific circumstance.

The Elements of Negligence Per Se

Negligence per se is characterized by four primary elements. To prove negligence per se, you must demonstrate:

  • The defendant disregarded a law or rule meant to safeguard people from suffering harm.
  • The injuries you sustained were directly caused by the violation.
  • The damage you experienced is precisely the kind of harm the law was intended to prevent.
  • You belonged to the group of individuals the law was designed to protect.

Your case needs to demonstrate that the offender violated a particular law or rule to establish the first component. This may entail proving that the offender was speeding, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, using their phone when driving, or engaging in a different traffic offense at the time the accident occurred.

To have a legal claim for negligence, you must belong to the group of individuals that legislation was intended to defend and you need to have suffered the damages that the legislation was established to prevent. Traffic regulations are intended to prevent collisions and damage to other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians, and passengers.

Finally, you need to demonstrate that there is a strong likelihood that the offender's actions and legal violations contributed to your injuries. Causation can be readily demonstrated easily in some cases, but this is not always the case.

In addition, causation consists of two components: the proximate cause and the actual cause. The act that started the harm or accident serves as the actual cause. The term "proximate causation" refers to something that played a significant role in the occurrence or harm.

In some situations, such as when a driver runs through a stop sign and hits someone at an intersection, the actual cause can be easily determined. However, it can be harder to determine the proximate cause. The following factors could be used by the court to demonstrate that the defendant's actions triggered the accident:

The But-For Test

A "but for" test requires the court to determine whether or not the injuries you suffered would have happened without the defendant's actions. Proximate cause exists once the court concludes that the plaintiff's damages wouldn't have happened without the defendant's negligent act.

The Substantial Factor Test

According to the substantial factor tests, the court will have to determine whether the accused's actions played a significant role in the injuries sustained. This test allows the judge more discretion in determining which parties were responsible for an accident.

What Negligence Per Se Doesn't Do

Even if negligence per se can be proven, there may still be other issues that need to be resolved in a lawsuit. It doesn't demonstrate liability beyond a reasonable doubt because the accused could still be capable of satisfying their burden of proving their lack of negligence. One strategy for doing so is to present evidence that contradicts the presumption, for example by demonstrating that:

  • A rational individual would have broken the law in the same way that the accused did given the circumstances.
  • The defendant was not aware that they had to adhere to the law and neither should they have been aware of it.
  • The offender was unable to adhere to the law.
  • The defendant was unable to follow the law because of an emergency.
  • Compliance with the law could have been risky.

Additionally, negligence per se cannot demonstrate that the complainant's losses were appropriate or tied to the defendant's negligence. The burden of proof stands with the complaining party, and if they fail to prove it, they are unlikely to win.

The Differences Between Negligence Per Se and Negligence

To establish negligence under the common legal standard, four factors must be shown:

  • The defendant had a duty of reasonable care to the victim.
  • The defendant violated this legal duty.
  • The complainant's injuries were brought on by the defendant's violation.
  • The plaintiff sustained damages.

The initial two components of negligence—the level of care and reasonable duty of care—can be proven using the concept of negligence per se. By proving negligence per se, you have demonstrated that the offender owed you a legal duty of reasonable care (and you were the subject of the statute's protection), and they disregarded that duty by breaking the law.

As a result, you will not have to wait for a jury to determine what the reasonable duty of care would have been in your situation. Additionally, they do not have the opportunity to determine whether the defendant's actions were contrary to what a logical individual would have done.

Additional Examples of Negligence Per Se

There are numerous circumstances in which negligence per se can occur, such as:

Building codes

The purpose of enacting building codes is to safeguard the lives of those living inside the structures from any potential hazards. For instance, if a builder disregards a rule intended to stop a fire from spreading and inhabitants are hurt during a fire that could have been put out had the rule been followed, the violation could be considered negligence per se.

Federal Legislation

Numerous federal laws impose obligations that defend certain groups as well as the general public. For instance, if a doctor in an emergency room declines to attend to a prospective patient, this could be considered negligence per se and an Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act violation.

BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) Limits

Laws against drunk driving are designed to safeguard the general public from impaired drivers. When an individual hurt in an incident involving a DUI can prove that the motorist was found guilty of exceeding the legal blood alcohol content limit while driving, the incident that followed will be an illustration of negligence per se.

Negligence per se isn't always apparent. In some cases, specific accident-related expertise is needed to positively identify it. It is crucial to discuss your personal injury matter with an attorney who has handled cases similar to yours.

Negligence Per Se is a Rebuttable Presumption

You can rebut the presumption of negligence per se. This implies that the person being accused can present proof to dispute that their actions were negligent. However, when negligence per se is established, the burden of proof is shifted from the complainant to the accused, who now has to show that they didn't act negligently when they broke the law in question.

The California Evidence Code 669 states that to rebut the negligence presumption, the following must be shown:

  • The defendant infringed the statute by acting in a manner that could have been reasonably expected of an individual in similar circumstances who wished to follow the law.
  • The accused person was a minor who displayed the typical maturity required for someone of their age, but not when engaging in activities typically performed by adults and that require adult credentials (like driving).

It is difficult to refute negligence per se once it has been proven. The burden of proof rests on the accused to show that a law-abiding citizen would be required to violate the law under the same circumstances. They could provide proof of:

  • They continued to take reasonable precautions to adhere to the law.
  • Given the defendant's incapacity, it was reasonable for them to break the law.
  • Even after taking all necessary precautions, the defendant was unable to meet the requirements of the law.
  • It was more likely that they or others would be harmed if they complied with the rules and regulations.
  • They were forced to break the law due to an unforeseen situation that they didn't cause.

It is challenging, but not impossible, to rebut negligence per se. The defendant might not be considered negligent per se if their brakes did not work and they were unable to stop before an accident occurred.

A defendant could have a good reason for using a phone when driving if they were calling in an emergency, such as an injured person they saw on the sidewalk. A driver could also have a good reason for speeding when they were taking an individual whose health suddenly got more serious to the hospital.

How Negligence Per Se Affects Personal Injury Cases in California

The doctrine of negligence per se can help you win the case when you feel the person who caused your accident broke the rules at the time it happened.

You are capable of showing the defendant's breach of the duty of reasonable care and how their actions went against what a logical individual would have done in the same situation if you prove that they were negligent per se under the law. Additionally, you have demonstrated that the offender's actions directly contributed to your injury.

You can't win a lawsuit just by demonstrating negligence per se. You still have to show both your damages and actual causation, which is typically the simpler component of causation to prove.

However, it significantly reduces the burden of proof and transfers it to the accused. When the jury fails to find that the accused was negligent per se, they will still take into account additional proof in the case to determine whether they were negligent.

To prove negligence per se, a personal injury attorney can present the most compelling evidence possible. Based on the specifics of your accident, demonstrating that the defendant broke the law could entail:

  • A police report.
  • Footage from traffic cameras.
  • A citation that was issued after a crash.
  • Pictures of the accident scene.
  • Eyewitnesses' accounts.
  • Expert testimony.
  • Medical records.

When deciding whether or not an accused is negligent under the law, California juries are provided with California Civil Jury Instructions 418, also known as the "Presumption of Negligence per se" instructions.

According to the directives, the jury has to decide that the accused party acted negligently without a good reason if the complainant can show that the defendant broke an applicable law and it played a significant role in triggering the injury.

What are the Possible Defenses in Cases of Negligence Per Se?

Defendants have the option to refute per se negligence presumptions in California as well as raise a defense in opposition to these accusations. Defense attorneys employ several legal defenses, such as demonstrating that:

  • There was no law, statute, or ordinance violated by the defendant.
  • You didn't belong to a group that the laws were designed to defend.
  • Your injuries weren't brought on by the offender's violation.

The Defendant Didn't Break Any Laws, Statutes, or Regulations

Keep in mind that negligence is only valid in legal cases where there has been an infringement of a law or statute. This indicates that an accused person's ability to establish their innocence is a legal defense in every case.

You Didn't Belong to a Group that the Law Was Designed to Defend

Additionally, keep in mind that this notion is only valid if you belong to the group of people that the statute in question aimed to defend. Therefore, proving that you did not belong to this safeguarded class serves as a defense.

Your Injuries Were Not Brought on by the Offender's Violation

You need to have suffered some kind of harm to win a negligence per se case. As a result, a defendant can always raise the following as a defense:

  • The defendant's actions might have been against the laws, but
  • You suffered no harm as a result of this violation.

In other words, there wasn't any connection between the harm you suffered and the violation of the laws in question. If the violation wasn't a major contributing factor to the losses, that's a defense, too.

The Difference Between Res Ipsa Loquitur and Negligence Per Se

In personal injury cases in California, the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur is applied to demonstrate negligence. However, the argument is different since it proves negligent behavior through circumstantial evidence rather than through the breaking of a statute.

If the following conditions are met, the court may infer negligence:

  • The evidence indicates that there was an accident.
  • Other than the defendant's actions, there's no other logical justification for it.

Elements Of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The following three requirements must be met to utilize res ipsa loquitur:

  • If someone hadn't acted negligently, the injury or crash wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
  • The defendant had sole control over the event or circumstance that resulted in the injury.
  • You did nothing to cause the injuries.
  • The accused can demonstrate their innocence when you provide evidence of this. Inability to do so will render the defendant's attempt to refute the claims as being unsuccessful.

Negligence Per Se Limitations

To be effective, it must both protect members of the plaintiff's group and forestall the specific type of harm that the plaintiff has experienced.

Similarly, a negligence per se claim can not be based on an occupational safety regulation about electrical installation if the people suing are passersby and the regulation's purpose is to safeguard workers from injury.

In a region with "conventional negligence per se laws," even if the offenders' actions were adequate, they would still be held liable.

But some circumstances can support an accused person's excuse. Even in jurisdictions that uphold negligence per se, particular excuses for legal violations could be allowed under the Second Restatement of Torts, Section 288(a).

Valid excuses include the following situations:

  • It was acceptable to break the law given the defendant's incapacity.
  • The accused was unaware of the need to comply.
  • The accused was not able to adhere even with logical care or diligence.
  • The defendant experienced an unforeseen situation that wasn't brought on by their wrongdoing.
  • Compliance with the law would have increased the likelihood of harm or injury to the accused or other people.

Find a Los Angeles Personal Injury Attorney Near Me

If you were injured because of another person's negligence, or intentional disregard for the laws, The Personal Injury Attorney Law Firm is prepared to fight for you. Make an appointment for a free initial consultation with one of our personal injury attorneys right away to go over your case and how we can assist you. Call us today at 800-492-6718.