What Is Negligence Per Se In Car Accidents

Name

Email*

Phone*

Message*

Get My Free Case Review

Confidential Case Review • No Fee Unless We Win

Negligence is the core principle in most car accident cases. Essentially, it means someone failed to exercise reasonable care, causing harm to another person. However, proving what constitutes “reasonable care” can be complex, often involving witness testimony, accident reconstruction, and expert opinions. That’s where negligence per se comes in. It allows us to establish negligence based on the violation of a law specifically designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred.

In Demetrius’s case, the delivery van driver blatantly ran a red light – a clear violation of California Vehicle Code § 21701. This isn’t simply a traffic ticket; it’s a direct breach of a safety statute. Because running a red light is intended to prevent collisions, and a collision did occur as a result of that violation, we have a strong basis for claiming negligence per se. This drastically reduces the need to argue about what a “reasonable driver” would have done; the law itself defines the standard of care.

I’ve been practicing personal injury law in San Diego for over 13 years, and I’ve seen firsthand how insurance companies try to muddy the waters and place blame on the victim. I was fortunate early in my career to train with a former insurance defense attorney, giving me intimate knowledge of how they evaluate, devalue, and deny claims. They frequently attempt to argue about the specifics of reasonable care, even in seemingly clear-cut cases. Negligence per se provides a powerful tool to circumvent those tactics by focusing on the violation of the law itself.

How does negligence per se differ from regular negligence?

Regular negligence requires proving four elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. With negligence per se, we still need to prove causation and damages – that the violation of the law caused the accident and resulted in actual harm. But proving the breach of duty is significantly streamlined, as the violation of the statute itself establishes that breach.

For example, imagine a driver texting while driving in San Diego. Texting while driving is illegal under California law. If that driver causes an accident while texting, we can leverage negligence per se to demonstrate the breach of duty. We don’t need to argue about whether texting is ‘careless’; the law already defines it as such.

The critical component is that the statute violated must be designed to protect against the type of harm that occurred. A speeding ticket, for instance, wouldn’t automatically establish negligence per se in a car accident unless it could be directly linked to causing the collision. It has to be a logical connection between the law and the harm suffered.

What types of violations can establish negligence per se?

Numerous violations can potentially qualify as negligence per se, including but not limited to: running red lights (CVC § 21701), speeding (CVC § 22350), driving under the influence (CVC § 23152), violating right-of-way rules (CVC § 21000), and failing to yield (CVC § 21804). It’s important to note that simply having a ticket issued doesn’t automatically guarantee a negligence per se claim; it still needs to be proven in court that the violation caused the accident.

In some cases, even ordinances can create a basis for a negligence per se claim. For example, a city ordinance prohibiting parking in a certain location could establish negligence if a parked vehicle obstructs visibility and contributes to an accident. The key is that the violation must be directly related to the accident and the intent of the law.

Successfully establishing negligence per se can significantly strengthen your case and increase your chances of a favorable outcome. However, it’s a complex legal issue that requires a thorough understanding of California law and the specific facts of your situation.

Can the other driver argue against negligence per se?

Absolutely. The defense will often try to argue that the statutory violation wasn’t the proximate cause of the accident. They might claim that even without the violation, the accident would have happened anyway due to some other factor, like unavoidable circumstances or the victim’s own negligence. They might also argue the statute doesn’t apply to the specific circumstances.

For example, let’s say a driver runs a stop sign but the other driver was speeding excessively and clearly had time to avoid the collision. The defense could argue that the speeding was the primary cause, not the stop sign violation. This is where strong evidence, such as witness testimony, police reports, and accident reconstruction analysis, becomes crucial.

Furthermore, they might introduce evidence suggesting the statutory violation wasn’t definitively proven. This could involve challenging the accuracy of the police report or questioning the credibility of witnesses. Preparing a robust defense against these challenges is essential to successfully pursuing a negligence per se claim.

What evidence is needed to prove negligence per se?

To prove negligence per se, you’ll typically need: (1) the statute or ordinance was violated, (2) the statute was intended to protect against the type of harm that occurred, (3) the violation was the proximate cause of the accident, and (4) you suffered actual damages. Evidence might include the police report documenting the violation, witness statements confirming the violation, photographs of the accident scene, medical records documenting your injuries, and repair bills for your vehicle.

Having a clear understanding of the applicable statutes and ordinances, coupled with compelling evidence, is critical. In Demetrius’s case, the dashcam footage from his vehicle clearly showed the delivery van running the red light, making the evidence irrefutable. This, combined with the official police report, provided a solid foundation for a negligence per se claim.

If you’ve been involved in a car accident and suspect negligence per se might apply, it’s essential to consult with an experienced personal injury attorney who can assess your case and guide you through the legal process.

What happens if both drivers were negligent?

California follows a principle of comparative negligence. This means that even if both drivers were at fault, you can still recover damages, but your recovery will be reduced by your percentage of fault. Even if negligence per se applies to the other driver, your own negligence won’t necessarily bar you from recovering compensation. The jury will determine the percentage of fault assigned to each party.

For example, if the other driver ran a red light (negligence per se) but you were also speeding slightly, the jury might find you 20% at fault and reduce your damages accordingly. This is why it’s so important to gather all the evidence surrounding the accident, including any evidence of your own potential negligence, to present a complete and accurate picture of what happened.

Establishing negligence per se in conjunction with comparative negligence requires a nuanced understanding of California law and a thorough investigation of all the facts.