Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Generic20101L
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 pm

Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby Generic20101L » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:06 pm

So, do both take care of Duty and Breach?

They are similar, I just want to know the differences, and how to attack them both on exams.

Also, the different kinds of Negligence Per Se, i.e. as a rebuttable presumption, strict liability, as evidence of negligence. How do those different kinds affect an exam answer? What is the majority view?

User avatar
jbarl1
Posts: 563
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:40 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby jbarl1 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:09 pm

PM'd you what I organized in my outline on both of them. Hope it helps. Sorry that I can't help more...too much to do haha.

The formatting is weird when I paste it in to PM it, so if you look at it and you want it in regular formatting, PM me your email and I can send it along.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby Grizz » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:11 pm

Res Ipsa only takes care of breach, Neg. per se takes care of both (statute establishes the duty).

I have no idea what you said in paragraph 3, and I took torts yesterday.

edit: sort of tried to make sense of what you said. Neg. per se isn't a strict liability doctrine, and generally, as far as rebuttable presumption goes, you might be able to show that it was more reasonable to NOT follow the stature, which can be a successful defense.

Generic20101L
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby Generic20101L » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:19 pm

rad law wrote:Res Ipsa only takes care of breach, Neg. per se takes care of both (statute establishes the duty).

I have no idea what you said in paragraph 3, and I took torts yesterday.

edit: sort of tried to make sense of what you said. Neg. per se isn't a strict liability doctrine, and generally, as far as rebuttable presumption goes, you might be able to show that it was more reasonable to NOT follow the stature, which can be a successful defense.


Some states look at neg per se as rebuttable presumption, others look at it as evidence of negligence, others as strict liability.

Neg per se has to be based on a statute?

User avatar
sundevil77
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:34 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby sundevil77 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:24 pm

Also, res ipsa allows for breach determination to be made by jury, but it doesn't guarantee it. Unless, of course, the breach is so obvious that court rules as a matter of law that they breached.

User avatar
rdcws000
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby rdcws000 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:59 pm

Generic20101L wrote:So, do both take care of Duty and Breach?

They are similar, I just want to know the differences, and how to attack them both on exams.

Also, the different kinds of Negligence Per Se, i.e. as a rebuttable presumption, strict liability, as evidence of negligence. How do those different kinds affect an exam answer? What is the majority view?


This is what I remember.

Majority - Unexcused violation of a statute is negligence per se as a matter of law. Judge will direct a verdict if there is no excuse

Minority - Violation of a statute is rebuttable presumption of negligence per se. Jury will weigh the rebuttal.

Minority - Violation of a statute is only evidence of negligence for the jury.

User avatar
GoodToBeTheKing
Posts: 296
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby GoodToBeTheKing » Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:18 am

I am so glad I don't have to deal with this anymore! TORTS FINAL FIN :D

User avatar
klussy
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby klussy » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:38 am

Generic20101L wrote:
rad law wrote:

Neg per se has to be based on a statute?


isn't that the very definition

User avatar
quakeroats
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby quakeroats » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:52 am

klussy wrote:
Generic20101L wrote:
rad law wrote:

Neg per se has to be based on a statute?


isn't that the very definition


Yes. I suppose you could do something similar with violation of common law, although I'm not aware of it. Negligence per se can also be applied to local ordinances, but courts tend not to, or at least make it simple evidence of negligence.

User avatar
reasonable_man
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby reasonable_man » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:03 am

Generic20101L wrote:So, do both take care of Duty and Breach?

They are similar, I just want to know the differences, and how to attack them both on exams.

Also, the different kinds of Negligence Per Se, i.e. as a rebuttable presumption, strict liability, as evidence of negligence. How do those different kinds affect an exam answer? What is the majority view?


Yikes.

User avatar
Cupidity
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa

Postby Cupidity » Thu Dec 09, 2010 11:13 am

You can overcome negligence per se with a compelling interest




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests