Negligence Per Se

- when it is relied on the element they are attempting to establish is BREACH
Questions for Negligence Per Se analysis:(1) Was the statute designed to prevent injury or to require a specific safety precaution?(2) Is the party relying on the statute within the class of persons which the statute was designed to protect?

(1) burden of pleading(2) burden of production(3) burden of persuasion
- when the court says "negligence as a matter of law" hey mean that the 3 burden's of p's have been met

P had no lights on his buggy, D driving on the wrong side of the roadBoth were negligent, both violated statutes

RULE: Where a statute provides a general rule of conduct without fixing a definite standard of care which would be applicable under all circumstances to protect life, limb, and property OR is calculated to increase public safety THEN negligence?

RULE: Statute was violated, but statute was not calculated to protect cows

RULE: consent to an assault is no justification, for, since the state is wronged by it, the law forbids it on public grounds

RULE: Unless the P's injury was caused by carelessness or lack of skill, the D's failure to obtain a license was not connected with the injury

The failure of a person to exercise due care is PRESUMED IF:(1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of public entity(2) The violation proximately caused death or injury to person or property(3) The death or injury resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent, and(4) The person suffering the death or the injury to his person or property was one of the class of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance or regulation was adopted

The P's failure to "stop, look, and listen" was negligence as a matter of lawHe knew he must stop for the train not the train stop for him

The opinion in Goodman's case has been a source of confusion in the federal courts to the extent that it imposes a standard for application by the judge, and has had only wavering support in the courts of the states. This court limits that standard. (Cardozo rejected Holmes absolute standard)

Dust storm big truck case (reduced his speed to 5 miles per hourRULE: When vision is partially or completely obscured, the jury should determine whether D's failure to stop constitutes negligence under the general test of whether defendant acted as a reasonable man in view of all the facts and circumstances.