In California, negligence per se establishes a presumption of negligence when a person violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation that was designed to protect against the type of harm that occurred. This presumption can be rebutted if certain excusing conditions are met.
A party is presumed negligent if they violate a statute, regulation, or ordinance, and that violation is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm 4. If the violation is proven and was a substantial factor in causing harm, then the party is found negligent unless the violation was excused 4. If the violation is not proven, or if it was not a substantial factor, or if it was excused, then the question of negligence is decided based on other instructions 4.
The doctrine of negligence per se creates a presumption of negligence, meaning that once a violation of a relevant law is established and shown to be a substantial factor in causing harm, the burden shifts to the violator to demonstrate an excuse 4. If a violation of a law has been established and is not in dispute, the jury must decide if the violation was excused 1. If it was not excused, the jury must then decide if the violation was a substantial factor in harming the plaintiff 1. If it was a substantial factor, the jury must find the violator negligent 1.
A violation of a law can be excused under several circumstances:
For example, if a minor violates a law, that violation may be excused if the minor was as careful as a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, knowledge, and experience would have been in the same situation 2. If this condition is met, the minor is not considered negligent 2.
The concept of "substantial factor" is crucial in determining whether the violation led to the harm 4. A substantial factor is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm 5. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm 5.
The provided sources do not define what constitutes a "statute, regulation, or ordinance" for the purpose of negligence per se [1, 4]. They also do not specify the types of "incapacity" that would excuse a violation 3. The sources do not elaborate on what "other reason excusing or justifying noncompliance" might entail 3. Furthermore, the sources do not provide a comprehensive definition of "negligence" outside the context of negligence per se, nor do they detail the general standard of care that applies when negligence per se is not established 6. The sources do not discuss the specific elements required to prove the initial violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance [1, 4].
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.
This page is one answer. Put your own facts to the same corpus and get the passages back with it.
Ask Basil BriefBasil AI is our meeting notetaker for lawyers. It runs on your device, so it never sends your recordings anywhere. Leave your email and we will send you a code for 30 days free.
This is for Basil AI, the notetaker — a different product from Basil Brief, which you are reading now. We use your email to send the code and occasional updates.
Your code is on its way. If it is not there in a few minutes, look in spam.