Negligence per se is a legal doctrine which holds that the violation of a statute or ordinance intended wholly or partially to prevent harm may constitute the basis of a claim for compensation for harm caused by the violation. In some states, negligence per se establishes a cause of action, while in others the violation constitutes only a presumption of negligence.
The Elements That Are the Basis for Negligence Per Se
Restatement of Torts, Second, section 286, defines negligence per se as follows:
The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part –(a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and(b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and(c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and(d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.
Violations as Negligence Per Se
Many courts have ruled that violating dog laws can establish negligence per se, making the owner automatically liable for damages. Below are cases where courts applied this doctrine:
- Miller v. Hurst, 302 Pa. Super. 235, 448 A.2d 614 (1982)
A violation of dog laws constituted negligence per se. 【Miller v. Hurst】 - Pigman v. Nott, 305 Minn. 512, 233 N.W.2d 287 (1975)
The owner of a horse was held liable for damages to an automobile under negligence per se because the horse was running at large in violation of a statute. 【Pigman v. Nott】 - Alex v. Armstrong, 215 Tenn. 276, 385 S.W.2d 110 (1964)
A dog owner was held liable when a loose dog knocked the plaintiff to the ground, violating an “at-large” law. 【Alex v. Armstrong】 - Butler v. Frieden, 208 Va. 352, 158 S.E.2d 121 (1967)
An unleashed and unattended dog violated both an at-large law and a leash law, leading to liability under negligence per se. 【Butler v. Frieden】 - Eigner v. Race, 54 Cal.App.2d 506 (1942)
The owner of a Great Dane was held liable when the dog, although leashed, was not under effective control by a minor, violating a local ordinance. - Brotemarkle v. Snyder, 99 Cal. App. 2d 388 (1950)
A loose dog ran into a motor scooter, causing an accident. The court ruled the owner liable under negligence per se. - Duffy v. Gebhart, 52 Del. 312, 157 A.2d 585 (1960)
A dog owner was held liable when their loose dog attacked another dog on a public sidewalk, causing the plaintiff to be injured while trying to protect their pet. The court also ruled the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent for intervening. 【Duffy v. Gebhart】
These cases illustrate how violating leash laws, at-large laws, or other safety regulations can automatically establish liability under the doctrine of negligence per se.
A good jury instruction tells jurors that violating a leash law or other animal control law is negligence per se, and requires them to find the defendant legally liable. See for example N.C.P.I. – Civil 812.04 (North Carolina).
Violation of Laws as Evidence of Negligence
Many states do not recognize the doctrine of negligence per se. However, their courts still allow violations of laws designed to protect people from harm by dogs or other animals to be used as evidence of negligence. Here are some examples:
- Massachusetts: A plaintiff’s violation of a criminal statute, ordinance, or regulation that contributed to an injury, death, or damage is considered evidence of negligence, but it does not automatically bar recovery. (M.G.L.A. 231 § 85) 【Massachusetts Law】
- Hawaii: Violating a state or city law is evidence of negligence, but it does not prove negligence by itself. The violation must be considered along with all other evidence. (Civil Jury Instructions, Instr. 4.4) 【Hawaii Civil Jury Instructions】
- Maryland: A statutory or ordinance violation is evidence of negligence but not negligence per se. The fact-finder must still decide whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances. (Hansberger v. Smith, 229 Md.App. 1 (2016)) 【Hansberger v. Smith】
- Illinois: A violation of a law designed to protect human life is prima facie evidence of negligence. The plaintiff must show:
- They are part of the protected class under the law.
- Their injury is the type of harm the law was meant to prevent.
- The violation caused the injury. (Price ex rel. Massey v. Hickory Point Bank & Trust, Trust No. 0192, 362 Ill.App.3d 1211 (2006)) 【Price v. Hickory Point Bank】
- Michigan: Violating statutes, ordinances, or administrative regulations is only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. (Zeni v. Anderson, 397 Mich. 117 (1976)) 【Zeni v. Anderson】
- Iowa: The violation of a municipal safety ordinance may be considered either negligence per se or prima facie evidence of negligence, depending on the facts and the purpose of the law. (Winger v. CM Holdings, L.L.C., 881 N.W.2d 433 (2016)) 【Winger v. CM Holdings】
Even in states that do not follow negligence per se, these legal violations can still play a key role in proving negligence and securing compensation.
Statutory Versions of Negligence Per Se
Some states have statutes that are the equivalent of the negligence per se doctrine. California is one such state. See Negligence and Negligence Per Se in California.
For Further Reading
- Negligence and negligence per se are further discussed at Legal Rights of Dog Bite Victims in the USA.
- An extensive brief of California negligence per se is at Negligence and Negligence Per Se in California.
- Retractable leashes can result in liability. See Retractable Leashes: Unsafe, Illegal, and a Liability.