Negligence Per Se Question

[Guchster]

This may be a stupid question, but you still have to establish causation (cause-in-fact and proximate cause) once you've determined that a D violated a statute, correct?

Part of the negligence per se analysis were trained to use was to consider whether P was person protected by statute and the type of harm she suffered was contemplated by the statute (or violation of the statute increased the risk that harm would occur). Isn't this technically a proximate cause analysis?

How would you set up an issue analysis to discuss this?

[Stringer6]

Yes. Type of harm contemplated by statute = proximate cause.

[AVBucks4239]

I was also thinking about this same question. It seems once you have established negligence per se (plaintiff suffered type of harm statute was meant to protect [foreseeable harm]/plaintiff was in the class of persons statute was meant to protect [foreseeable plaintiff]) that you've already established proximate cause.

So, when discussing causation, do you just discuss cause in fact, then refer the reader back to your negligence per se analysis for proximate cause?

[Arbiter213]

They're seperate analyses with the same standard. It would be almost impossible to find negligence per se without finding proximate cause, however. So yes, you could just refer back to neg per se when you get to proximate cause.

[sundance95]

I asked my professor about this just today; he said that while they are analogous, they are not equivalent. Further, limited statutory purpose is a question of law, while proximate cause is a question of fact.