Lecture #10-2 Statutes
Introduction to Negligence and Statutory Duty
Discussed the role of a statute in establishing duty in tort law.
Overview of how a violation of statute can be used to prove breach.
Introduced the case Zini v. Anderson as a focal point for this discussion.
Case Context
The focus of analysis is on the conduct of the plaintiff, contrary to the traditional view where defendant's actions are scrutinized.
The defendant in this case argues that the plaintiff's conduct violates the statute as part of their defense.
This methodological reversal prompts the court to assess plaintiff conduct similarly to how it would analyze defendant conduct.
Establishing Duty and Breach
The plaintiff initially establishes duty through the statute.
The next step is for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant violated the statute.
Courts refer to the result of a statute violation as "negligence per se":
Negligence per se: Violation of the statute is sufficient to establish negligence, which denotes breach of duty, not liability.
Judicial Approaches to Negligence Per Se
Approach 1: Strict Negligence Per Se
In this approach, the judge decides whether the statute serves as a standard of care.
If accepted, the judge directs a verdict on the element of duty.
The jury’s role is limited to determining if the statute was violated.
Upon finding a violation, the judge instructs the jury to conclude there was a breach; thus, no room for excuses or exceptions.
Approach 2: Excusable Negligence Per Se
The second approach allows the defendant to present reasons explaining the statute violation.
This approach recognizes that there are scenarios where a violation should not automatically lead to a finding of negligence.
Typically follows a model suggested by the Restatement of Torts.
Circumstantial Analysis
The court indicates that the application of the statute must be consistent with basic tort principles.
The metric of a "reasonable or prudent person" is reliant on circumstances which may justify a statute violation.
The defendant can argue that adhering to the statute would create an unreasonable risk of harm.
Court's Ruling in Zini v. Anderson
The court adopts the second approach, allowing for justification of conduct mitigating statutory violations.
Clarification that jurisdictions using this approach still refer to it as negligence per se while permitting an evaluation of circumstances.
Key Sequence of Analysis:
Court identifies statute as expressing duty.
Plaintiff demonstrates the defendant’s statutory violation.
Defendant may present reasons for excusing the violation.
Conclusion
The court’s ruling indicates a nuanced understanding of negligence in relation to statutory violations.
Upcoming lectures will shift focus to legal and medical malpractice causes of action.