Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – N > Negligence Per Se Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Negligence Per Se Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Case data brought to you by Brien Roche, Fairfax, Va. leading tort law attorney.

See Va. Code § 8.01-221 indicating that person injured by violation of statute may recover for such even though criminal penalty has been imposed.

2011 Kaltman v. All American Pest Control, 281 Va. 483, 706 S.E.2d 864.

In a negligence per se case the plaintiff must show that the defendant violated a statute enacted for public safety, that the plaintiff belongs to the class of persons for whose benefits the statute was enacted and that the harm that occurred was of the type against which the statute was designed to protect and finally that the violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. In this case, the plaintiff alleged spraying of an unauthorized pesticide within the plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff properly pled negligence per se claim.

2004 Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club, 268 Va. 74, 597 S.E.2d 43.

Plaintiff shot by another hunter while both were hunting. Shooter was charged with violation of Va. Code § 18-2-56.1(a), making it unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger life, limb, or property of any person. Shooter pleaded guilty to that charge. At trial, plaintiff asked for jury instruction on negligence per se. If offered instruction finds any support in credible evidence, its refusal is reversible error. That applied in this case where plaintiff met elements of negligence per se by presenting evidence that shooter violated a statute enacted for public safety, that plaintiff belonged to class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted, the harm suffered was of a type against which the statute was designed to protect, and the statutory violation is a cause of the injury. The elements of whether the statute was enacted for public safety and whether the plaintiff was a member of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute was enacted and suffered an injury of the type against which the statute protects are issues decided by the court. The issue of whether the statutory violation was a cause of the injury is a factual issue. Likewise, if the violation of the statute is in dispute, that issue is also for the jury. In this case, it was reversible error not to grant instruction.

2000 Halterman v. Radisson Hotel Corp., 259 Va. 171, 523 S.E.2d 823.

Plaintiff asserted claim of negligence per se which was stricken due to lack of evidence that defendant failed to provide information required under certain hazardous materials regulation. As such, plaintiff failed to prove violation of that regulation. Plaintiff alleged that he was injured by exposure to hazardous chemicals while repairing washing machines in hotel. The regulation requires employers to provide specified information to certain employees concerning hazardous chemicals used at work. Trial court properly ruled that plaintiff was not within class of persons that regulations intended to protect since he was not employee of hotel. Plaintiff simply failed to show that defendant violated any requirement imposed by this regulation. Elements of negligence per se are that the defendant violated statute enacted for public safety, plaintiff belongs to class of persons for whose benefit statute was enacted, and harm that occurred was a type against which statute was designed to protect.

1988 Karim v. Grover, 235 Va. 550, 369 S.E.2d 185.

Plaintiff did not have lamp on front of bicycle. Defendant alleged contributory negligence per se. Although this may be negligence, it does not follow necessarily that such negligence will as matter of law prevent recovery. It must be shown that violation was proximate or concurring cause which contributed directly to injury. Causation in this case was jury issue.

1968 Virginia Stage Lines v. Brockman Chevrolet, Inc., 209 Va. 188, 163 S.E.2d 148.

Defendant stopped bus on highway in violation of Va. Code § 46.1-248(b) [now § 46.2-888], which was negligence per se. Plaintiff failed, however, to establish such negligence as proximate cause. Judgment for plaintiff reversed.

1967 Butler v. Frieden, 208 Va. 352, 158 S.E.2d 121.

Violation of ordinance is negligence per se if plaintiff is member of protected class.

1966 Smith v. Virginia Transit Co., 206 Va. 951, 147 S.E.2d 110.

Plaintiff injured after alighting from bus. Ordinance requiring posting of signs at bus stops was not intended to protect plaintiff and its violation was not cause of accident.

1963 Baxley v. Fischer, 204 Va. 792, 134 S.E.2d 291.

Negligence per se will not support recovery for damages unless violation was proximate cause of injury. Proximate cause is normally question for jury.

1960 Standard Oil Co. v. Williams, 202 Va. 362, 117 S.E.2d 93.

Violation of statute constitutes negligence per se.

1959 Mite v. Gore, 201 Va. 239, 110 S.E.2d 228.

Automobile accident case. Defendant guilty of negligence per se. It was error not to instruct jury that defendant’s act was negligence per se justifying verdict in favor of plaintiff if it was proximate cause of injury.

1955 Gough v. Shaner, 197 Va. 572, 90 S.E.2d 171.

Violation of statute or ordinance by child under 14 is not negligence per se.

1953 McClanahan v. California Spray Corp., 194 Va. 842, 75 S.E.2d 712.

Violation of statute constitutes negligence per se and if it is proximate cause of injury, it will support recovery of damages.

1950 Rice v. Turner, 191 Va. 601, 62 S.E.2d 24.

Plaintiff’s vehicle struck defendant’s cow on highway at night. Plaintiff claimed negligence per se on part of defendant based on alleged violation of statute prohibiting owner from allowing certain animals to run at large beyond limits of owner’s land. Final judgment entered for defendant. Running-at-large statute implies knowledge, consent, or willingness on part of owner.

1949 Crist v. Fitzgerald, 189 Va. 109, 52 S.E.2d 145.

Violation of statute constitutes negligence per se, and if it proximately causes or contributes to injury, it will support recovery of damages.

1948 Moore v. Virginia Transit Co., 188 Va. 493, 50 S.E.2d 268.

Violation of statute or ordinance is negligence. But that is not exclusive standard.

1948 Powell v. Virginia Ry., 187 Va. 384, 46 S.E.2d 429.

Negligence per se will not bar recovery by plaintiff. Negligence must be proximate cause of accident. Discussion of principles applicable to negligence per se.

1948 Hamilton v. Glemming, 187 Va. 309, 46 S.E.2d 438.

If no consequences that enactment of statute was designed to guard against have resulted from its breach, such breach does not constitute actionable wrong even though some other injurious consequence has resulted.

1946 Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Shelton, 184 Va. 684, 36 S.E.2d 625.

Negligence to carry load, that of necessity, must extend over midline of roadway.

1944 Baecher v. McFarland, 183 Va. 1, 31 S.E.2d 279.

Violation of statute is grounds for recovery only if it is proximate cause of injury. If violation of statute merely creates condition in which accident happens from other causes, there is no liability.

1943 Crosswhite v. Southern Ry., 181 Va. 40, 23 S.E.2d 777.

Violation of statutory duty does not justify recovery unless failure to comply with statutory duty is proximate cause of accident which results in injury.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Negligence Per Se Cases Summarized By Injury Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Contact Us For A Free Consultation