Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa Forum
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 pm
Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
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?
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?
- jbarl1
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:40 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
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.
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.
- Grizz
- Posts: 10564
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:00 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
Some states look at neg per se as rebuttable presumption, others look at it as evidence of negligence, others as strict liability.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.
Neg per se has to be based on a statute?
- sundevil77
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:34 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- rdcws000
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:41 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
This is what I remember.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?
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.
- GoodToBeTheKing
- Posts: 296
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:34 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
I am so glad I don't have to deal with this anymore! TORTS FINAL FIN
- klussy
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:19 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
isn't that the very definitionGeneric20101L wrote:rad law wrote:
Neg per se has to be based on a statute?
- quakeroats
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:34 am
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
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.klussy wrote:isn't that the very definitionGeneric20101L wrote:rad law wrote:
Neg per se has to be based on a statute?
- reasonable_man
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:41 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
Yikes.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?
- Cupidity
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:21 pm
Re: Negligence Per Se v. Res Ipsa
You can overcome negligence per se with a compelling interest
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login