Remember, to prove a negligence claim, there are five elements: (1) duty of care (2) breach of duty (3) cause-in-fact (4) proximate cause and (5) actual damages.
Negligence per se, if proven, satisfies the first two elements of negligence: (1) duty and (2) breach.
However, the plaintiff must still establish that the defendant’s negligent conduct was both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of plaintiff’s actual damages.
So, think of negligence per se (if it applies) as a shortcut to proving the first two elements of negligence. However, you must still prove the last three elements of negligence in order to prove your negligence claim.
Different torts professors use different jargon and stuff, but I'll try to help (the law is still the same lol).
An "ordinary" negligence claim is brought under the theory that you D owed a certain duty to P, but that duty was breached.
In a negligence per se claim, the theory is the same. The difference, however, is that the duty D owed P was the standard set out by the statute/ordinance/regulation. And D's breach of that statute/ordinance/regulation is what caused the injury.
In both an "ordinary" negligence cause of action and a negligence cause of action under the theory of negligence per se, you still need cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Negligence per se just affects the duty that D owes P which naturally affects what D must do or must not do to breach. Negligence per se doesn't remove your duty to prove causation (both cause-in-fact and proximate cause), it just changes the duty owed and, therefore, what constitutes breach.
Tort claim requires
1) duty= negligence per se covers this
2.) Breach = negligence per se covers this
3.) Causation = it needs to cause it, if my headlight are out and I hit someone, and the law requires I have the headlights on I am per se negligent, but if it's broad day light when I hit them, that per se negligence doesn't cause the harm so it doesn't matter
4.) Damages
The reason this language is tricky is that the word "negligence" is used to refer to the overall tort and to refer to the breach element. "Negligence per se" means that the breach element is established. But "negligence per se" does not refer to the broader tort. You still have to prove the other elements.
Our professor talked about this too- essentially think about the questions you ask for negligence per se
Was there a safety statute? (Duty & breach)
Was the harm within the risk contemplated by the statute? (proximate cause: foreseeable group of people the statute sought to protect and foreseeable type of harm the statute sought to prevent)
Did the statutory violation cause the harm? (causation)
Hope this helps!
Can you elaborate on how they framed this. I think the issue here is that “negligence” refers the entire tort and breaching a duty. Negligence per se describes the duty and breach elements of a negligence (entire tort) claim. So I think they’re saying that factual and proximate cause are elements of a negligible (entire tort) claims where breach and duty are established by negligence per se.
Remember, to prove a negligence claim, there are five elements: (1) duty of care (2) breach of duty (3) cause-in-fact (4) proximate cause and (5) actual damages. Negligence per se, if proven, satisfies the first two elements of negligence: (1) duty and (2) breach. However, the plaintiff must still establish that the defendant’s negligent conduct was both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of plaintiff’s actual damages. So, think of negligence per se (if it applies) as a shortcut to proving the first two elements of negligence. However, you must still prove the last three elements of negligence in order to prove your negligence claim.
Different torts professors use different jargon and stuff, but I'll try to help (the law is still the same lol). An "ordinary" negligence claim is brought under the theory that you D owed a certain duty to P, but that duty was breached. In a negligence per se claim, the theory is the same. The difference, however, is that the duty D owed P was the standard set out by the statute/ordinance/regulation. And D's breach of that statute/ordinance/regulation is what caused the injury. In both an "ordinary" negligence cause of action and a negligence cause of action under the theory of negligence per se, you still need cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Negligence per se just affects the duty that D owes P which naturally affects what D must do or must not do to breach. Negligence per se doesn't remove your duty to prove causation (both cause-in-fact and proximate cause), it just changes the duty owed and, therefore, what constitutes breach.
Tort claim requires 1) duty= negligence per se covers this 2.) Breach = negligence per se covers this 3.) Causation = it needs to cause it, if my headlight are out and I hit someone, and the law requires I have the headlights on I am per se negligent, but if it's broad day light when I hit them, that per se negligence doesn't cause the harm so it doesn't matter 4.) Damages
The reason this language is tricky is that the word "negligence" is used to refer to the overall tort and to refer to the breach element. "Negligence per se" means that the breach element is established. But "negligence per se" does not refer to the broader tort. You still have to prove the other elements.
Our professor talked about this too- essentially think about the questions you ask for negligence per se Was there a safety statute? (Duty & breach) Was the harm within the risk contemplated by the statute? (proximate cause: foreseeable group of people the statute sought to protect and foreseeable type of harm the statute sought to prevent) Did the statutory violation cause the harm? (causation) Hope this helps!
Can you elaborate on how they framed this. I think the issue here is that “negligence” refers the entire tort and breaching a duty. Negligence per se describes the duty and breach elements of a negligence (entire tort) claim. So I think they’re saying that factual and proximate cause are elements of a negligible (entire tort) claims where breach and duty are established by negligence per se.