Negligence Per Se Question Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
User avatar
Guchster

Silver
Posts: 1300
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:38 pm

Negligence Per Se Question

Post by Guchster » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:05 am

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?
Last edited by Guchster on Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stringer6

Platinum
Posts: 5919
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:45 am

Re: Negligence Per Se Question

Post by Stringer6 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:22 am

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

User avatar
AVBucks4239

Silver
Posts: 1095
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se Question

Post by AVBucks4239 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:42 pm

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

Gold
Posts: 2248
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se Question

Post by Arbiter213 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 2:04 pm

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.

User avatar
sundance95

Gold
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Negligence Per Se Question

Post by sundance95 » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:29 pm

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.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”