We previously addressed the term “negligence”
and how that term is used in civil law, and, more specifically, in personal
injury cases. However, at Parnell & McKay, we often use a theory called “negligence
per se” to increase our chances of success in an injury lawsuit. Negligence per
se is the legal doctrine where an act is considered automatically negligent
because the person violated a statute or regulation.
Typically, this can be seen in a
traditional auto accident case. For example, let’s say Mary is driving her car
and came to a four-way intersection with traffic lights on all four sides. Mary’s
light is red, so she comes to a complete stop. Mary’s light turns green and she
starts to proceed through the intersection. John is coming from the right of
Mary, and decides he is going to run the red light because he is late for work.
The light turns red, but John doesn't stop and proceeds into the intersection.
Unfortunately for Mary, this causes John’s vehicle to strike Mary’s causing an
accident and Mary is injured.
In the first instance, it is clear
John is negligent, as we discussed previously in this
blog post. However, in order to tip the theory of liability more significantly
in favor of Mary, it is important to add a negligence per se count to the
lawsuit that demonstrates the violation of the statute John committed. In this
instance, John has violated RSA 265:9 and 265:10, which governs obedience to
traffic control devices. RSA 269:10 details what a person must do when faced
with a steady red light, which is fairly obvious: John must come to a complete
stop. Because John did not come to a complete stop, John has violated the
statute. Now, sometimes a police officer may not give John a ticket for running
the red light. However, that does not impact the ability to raise this theory
of liability with the Court.
In civil cases to establish
negligence per se, a person must establish that the Defendant (John in this
instance) violated the statute, that the act caused the harm the statute was designed
to prevent, and that the Plaintiff (Mary) was in the class of persons designed
to protect from that harm. It is clear John ran the red light. It is also clear
that the reason the statute exists is to prevent people from running red lights
and causing an accident. Finally, it is also clear that the Plaintiff was a
member of the protected class in that she was a lawfully licensed driver on the
roads who must be protected from other people running red lights. Once those
prerequisites are established, the Plaintiff has proved that the Defendant was
negligent per se by violating the statute. This has a significant impact on
settlement negotiations, and creates significant leverage for a Plaintiff’s
case.
If you were injured in an accident and
need assistance, contact the
Law Offices of Parnell & McKay to put our over 30 years of experience to
use.
