How To Prove A California Negligence Per Se Claim

In California, a claim of Negligence Per Se is defined as:
Negligence per se occurs when someone violates a code, statute, law, ordinance, or regulation, and the violation results in an injury that the law was created to prevent. The injured party injured is one that the statute or law was designed to protect.
It simply means:
Defendant’s behavior violated a statute.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity. The defendant broke a specific law or rule set by a government authority, which is important because it shows they acted carelessly and didn’t follow the standards meant to protect people from harm.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to maintain the property in compliance with local safety ordinances, resulting in hazardous conditions.
* The defendant ignored multiple warnings from city officials regarding code violations on the premises.
* The defendant operated the business without the required permits, violating municipal regulations.
* The defendant’s actions directly contravened state health regulations, leading to unsafe conditions for patrons.
* The defendant did not adhere to the mandated safety protocols outlined in the public entity’s regulations, endangering others. - Element 2. The violation was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm caused to plaintiff. This means that the violation of a law or rule directly contributed to the harm suffered by the person making the claim, showing that if the law hadn’t been broken, the injury likely wouldn’t have happened.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant’s failure to adhere to safety regulations directly led to the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
* Witnesses reported that the unsafe environment created by the defendant’s actions was a significant contributor to the accident.
* Medical records indicate that the plaintiff’s injuries were a direct result of the incident linked to the defendant’s negligence.
* The timeline of events shows that the violation occurred immediately before the plaintiff was harmed, establishing a clear connection.
* Expert testimony confirmed that the violation significantly increased the risk of harm to individuals in the vicinity, including the plaintiff. - Element 3. The harm resulted from an occurrence of the nature which the statute, ordinance, or regulation was designed to prevent. This element means that the harm caused must be the kind of injury that the law was created to avoid, showing that the violation of the law directly led to the damage or injury experienced by the victim.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant failed to maintain the property in accordance with local safety regulations, leading to a hazardous condition.
* The plaintiff was injured due to a lack of proper signage, which the ordinance required to warn of potential dangers.
* The incident occurred in an area designated as a high-risk zone, where the statute mandated specific safety measures to prevent accidents.
* The defendant’s actions directly violated a city ordinance aimed at preventing injuries in public spaces, resulting in the plaintiff’s harm.
* The harm suffered by the plaintiff was precisely the type of injury the regulation was intended to prevent, highlighting the direct link between the violation and the incident. - Element 4. The plaintiff was one of the classes of persons for whose protection the statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted. The plaintiff must belong to a group that the law was specifically created to protect, meaning the law was designed to keep people like them safe from harm.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The statute in question was enacted to safeguard pedestrians in high-traffic areas, and the plaintiff was walking in such an area at the time of the incident.
* The regulation specifically aims to protect individuals under the age of 18, and the plaintiff was a minor when the event occurred.
* The ordinance was designed to prevent injuries to cyclists, and the plaintiff was riding a bicycle in compliance with local traffic laws.
* The law was established to ensure the safety of individuals with disabilities, and the plaintiff has a documented disability that the statute intended to protect.
* The statute was created to regulate hazardous materials near residential areas, and the plaintiff lived within the affected zone at the time of the incident.
(See California Evidence Code section 669(a). California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 418.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Negligence Per Se, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate your case effectively.
Prove Your CA Negligence Per Se Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only