MBE Rules · Torts
Statutory violation — negligence per se vs. evidence of negligence
The rule
In most jurisdictions an unexcused violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se — conclusive proof of duty and breach — where the plaintiff is within the protected class and suffered the type of harm the statute was designed to prevent. A minority treats the violation only as evidence of negligence, leaving breach for the jury. Where the violated provision is a mere licensing or administrative regulation, or where the statute lacks a safety purpose, most courts treat the breach as evidence only.
In plain English
The same statutory violation can be treated three ways depending on jurisdiction and statute: conclusive (per se), rebuttable presumption, or just evidence for the jury to weigh. Know which regime the question is in.
The trap
A statute merely requiring a license (to drive, to practice medicine) usually does NOT support negligence per se — courts want a safety statute aimed at the risk that materialized.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.