Negligence - Duties - Statutory

Question 1

negligence per se

Answer 1

substituting a regular duty of care with a statute/law

statute must pass a 2-part test:
"class of person/class of risk" test

Plaintiff must be in the class of people the statute was designed to protect, AND the statute must have been designed to prevent the risk at issue in the instant case.

Question 2

two exceptions to the rule permitting plaintiff’s to swap regular standard/duty of care with a related statute or law

Answer 2

• compliance with the statute would have been more dangerous (ie, defendant swerves over double yellow line and hits plaintiff’s car, but did so to avoid running over a child sitting in road on the driver’s side of road)
• compliance was impossible (ie defendant has an unexpected heart attack while approaching red light, rendering him unconscious…at that point it is impossible for him to stop at red light)

Question 3

What must a plaintiff show, in order to prove the availability of a statutory standard of care (vs. a traditional, regular duty of care) in a negligence case?

Answer 3

that the standards set out in the statute are clearly defined

Question 4

Must a plaintiff show physical injury in order to prove the availability of a statutory standard of care in a negligence case?

Answer 4

No; any type of damages, including mere property damages, will suffice

Question 5

statutory standard of care

Answer 5

substitution of a regular duty of care with a statute/law