Negligence - Statutory Standards: Negligence Per Se Flashcards
What is the negligence per se rule?
A. The statute must be a safety statute (contrast the skating rink case [Pelkey] with the liquor case [Schooley]
B. directed against the kind of injury that occurred (contrast being pinned by a moving
car with being harmed by fire or explosion [De Ponzia]), and
C. for the benefit of the class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member (see the fire
code case [Snapp]).
Safety Statute
Against the Kind of Injury
For the benefit of the persons being injured
When does the problem of justification arise in negligence per se claims?
The problem of justification arises when the rule does not seem to identify reasonable care correctly in specified circumstances (Tedla). A Tedla type exception is limited to circumstances where the defendant’s conduct results in more of the safety the statute was intending to
promote – where compliance would “defeat the purpose of the rule.”
When does the problem of excuse arise in negligence per se claims?
The problem of excuse arises when the statutory standard specifies the level of care correctly, but the defendant claims they are not responsible for violating the statute because they reasonably didn’t know a violation was occurring, could not prevent the violation (lack of control), or did everything they could to ensure compliance. Lack of knowledge or control are the important excuses (Krebs, Spalding).
What negligence per se rules exist in Washington?
The violation, if you find any, of a [statute] [ordinance][administrative rule] relating
to [electrical fire safety] [the use of smoke alarms] [sterilization of needles and
instruments used in the practice of [body art] [body piercing] [tattooing] [or]
[electrology] [or other precaution against the spread of disease]] [driving while under
the influence of alcohol or any drug] is negligence as a matter of law. Such
negligence has the same effect as any other act of negligence.
