Definition
Negligence per se is a doctrine under which a violation of a statute or regulation automatically satisfies the negligence element of a civil claim when the plaintiff is in the class of persons the law was designed to protect and the injury is of the type the law was designed to prevent.
In California Rear-End Collision Cases
In California rear-end collision cases, a violation of CVC Section 21703 (following too closely) establishes negligence per se against the rear driver. The violation satisfies the negligence element of the civil claim without requiring the plaintiff to separately prove the driver's conduct was unreasonable. Additional violations — CVC Section 23123.5 (texting while driving), CVC Section 22362 (work zone speed) — create additional negligence per se theories.
California Law Context
California rear-end collision law applies this concept within the framework of Vehicle Code Section 21703's rebuttable presumption of fault, the eggshell plaintiff rule, pure comparative fault from Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), the two-year statute of limitations under CCP Section 335.1, and uncapped economic and non-economic damages.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Negligence Per Se in California rear-end collision law?
Negligence per se is a doctrine under which a violation of a statute or regulation automatically satisfies the negligence element of a civil claim when the plaintiff is in the class of persons the law was designed to protect and the injury is of the type the law was designed to prevent.
How does Negligence Per Se affect a California rear-end collision claim?
In California rear-end collision cases, a violation of CVC Section 21703 (following too closely) establishes negligence per se against the rear driver. The violation satisfies the negligence element of the civil claim without requiring the plaintiff to separately prove the driver's conduct was unreasonable. Additional violations — CVC Section 23123.5 (texting while driving), CVC Section 22362 (work zone speed) — create additional negligence per se theories.
How does this interact with California's pure comparative fault system?
Negligence Per Se interacts with California's pure comparative fault system from Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) in rear-end collision cases. Even when Negligence Per Se reduces or complicates the plaintiff's claim, California's pure comparative fault allows recovery so long as the plaintiff was not 100% at fault. Recovery is reduced proportionally by any plaintiff fault, but the Negligence Per Se principle generally operates to preserve the plaintiff's right to recover.