World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Negligence per se

Article Id: WHEBN0000021220
Reproduction Date:

Title: Negligence per se  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Assured Clear Distance Ahead, Nolo contendere, Product liability, United States tort law, Tort
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Negligence per se

Negligence per se is the legal doctrine whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation).


In order to prove negligence per se, the plaintiff usually must show that:

  1. the defendant violated the statute,
  2. the statute provides for a criminal penalty (i.e., fines or imprisonment) but not by civil penalties,[1]
  3. the act caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent, and
  4. the plaintiff was a member of the statute's protected class.

In some jurisdictions, negligence per se creates merely a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

A typical example is one in which a contractor violates a building code when constructing a house. The house then collapses, injuring somebody. The violation of the building code establishes negligence per se and the contractor will be found liable, so long as the contractor's breach of the code was the cause (proximate cause and actual cause) of the injury.


A famous early case in negligence per se is Gorris v. Scott, an 1874 Court of Exchequer case that established that the harm in question must be of the kind that the statute was intended to prevent. Gorris involved a shipment of sheep that was washed overboard but would not have been washed overboard had the shipowner complied with the regulations established pursuant to the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869, which required that livestock be transported in pens to segregate potentially-infected animal populations from uninfected ones. Chief Baron Fitzroy Kelly held that as the statute was intended to prevent the spread of disease, rather than the loss of livestock in transit, the plaintiff could not claim negligence per se.

A subsequent New York Court of Appeals case, Martin v. Herzog, penned by Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo, first presented the notion that negligence per se could be absolute evidence of negligence in certain cases.

See also


  1. ^ "Statutory Standards of Care - “Negligence per se”". LexisNexis. 

Further reading

  • Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14 (Tentative Draft No. 1, March 28, 2001)
  • Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 125 S. Ct. 2363, 2370 (2005).

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.