MBE Rules · Torts
Negligence per se
The rule
Statutory violation establishes duty AND breach if (1) plaintiff is within the class the statute aims to protect AND (2) the harm is of the type the statute aims to prevent. Causation and damages still required. Excuses: incapacity, emergency, compliance more dangerous, reasonable diligence unable to comply.
In plain English
If someone breaks a law meant to protect a certain group of people from a specific type of harm, they've automatically failed their duty to those people. But you still have to show their action caused the harm and resulted in damages.
Worked example
A driver runs a red light, hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The pedestrian is in the group the traffic law protects, and getting hit is the type of harm the law aims to prevent. The driver is negligent per se.
Memory hook
Statute breach? Duty & breach! But causation counts. Violate a statute, and you've got duty and breach covered, but causation and damages are still on the table.
The trap
Students think: Statutory violation = automatic liability. Wrong, because causation and damages must still be shown. The actual test is: duty and breach via statute, then prove causation and damages.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: statute violated, harm occurs. Question: is it negligence per se? Trap: assuming liability without proving causation and damages — they test those separately.
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.